WILLIAM (1533-1584), surnamed the Silent, prince of Orange, count of Nassau, was born at the castle of Dillenburg in Nassau on 16th April 1533. He was the eldest son of William of Nassau (died 1559) and his second wife, Juliana of Stolberg, a woman of remarkable piety and discretion, who devoted much thought and care to the training of her children. In 1544 he inherited from his cousin René or Renatus the principality of Orange and the great estates belonging to his family in the Netherlands (see Holland, vol. xii. p. 74 sqf He was educated at the court of Brussels in the Roman Catholic faith. Having attracted the attention of Charles V., he was invested by the emperor at the age of twenty-two with the command of the army on the French frontier; and it was on his shoulder that Charles V. leaned when in 1555, in the presence of a great assembly at Brussels, he transferred to his son Philip the sovereignty of the Netherlands. Orange was also selected to carry the insignia of the empire to Ferdinand, king of the Romans, when Charles resigned the imperial crown. He took part in Philip II.’s first war with France, and negotiated the preliminary arrangements for the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559). He was one of the hostages sent to France for the due execution of the treaty, and during his stay in that country Henry II., who entirely misunderstood his character, revealed to him a plan for the massacre of all Protestants in France and the Netherlands. The prince was horrified by this disclosure, but said nothing; and it was on account of his extraordinary discretion on this occasion that he received the surname of “the Silent.” The epithet is apt to convey a mistaken impression as to his general character. He was of a frank, open, and generous nature, without a touch of moroseness in the ordinary intercourse of life.

The persecution of the Protestants in the Netherlands, carried on with such reckless ferocity by Cardinal Granvella, led Orange, Egmont, and Horn, the most prominent of the great nobles, to protest against the violence of the Government; and in 1563 they wrote to Philip urging him to withdraw Granvella, and ceased to attend the state council. In the following year Granvella was displaced, whereupon they resumed their seats at the council; yet shortly afterwards it was decided by Philip that the canons of the Council of Trent, the edicts, and the Inquisition should be immediately promulgated in every town and village of the provinces, and that the process should be repeated every six months. At the meeting of the state council at which this was formally decided Orange disclaimed any responsibility for the consequences, and he whispered to his neighbour that now the most extraordinary tragedy the world had ever seen was about to begin. The proceedings of the Gueux or reforming party so alarmed the regent, Margaret of Parma, that she was persuaded to sign an accord, declaring the abolition of the Inquisition and granting liberty of worship in all places where the new forms of religion had been already accepted. In consequence of these concessions the great nobles undertook to restore order, the prince of Orange especially distinguishing himself at Antwerp. But Philip, who had been longing for an excuse to crush the independent spirits of the Nether landers, now resolved to send the duke of Alva into the country, with a Spanish force. Orange, since he could not count upon the hearty support of Egmont or Horn, had no alternative but to resign his offices and withdraw from the Netherlands (1567), taking up his residence at Dillenburg. He was warmly attached to Egmont, and before his departure, at an interview at Willebroeck, urged him to seek refuge in some foreign land; but Egmont was not to be persuaded, and the two friends parted never to see one another again.

Orange was repeatedly summoned to Brussels; but he declined to appear before the Council of Disturbances, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over an independent prince and a knight of the order of the Fleece. The havoc wrought by Alva filled him with grief and anger; and in 1568 he contrived to collect two forces, one of which, commanded by his brothers Louis and Adolphus, gained a victory in Groningen, where Adolphus fell. Alva, having ordered the execution of Egmont and Horn, advanced against Louis and defeated him in East Friesland. Orange then invaded Brabant, but could neither bring Alva to a decisive engagement nor induce the people to rise against him. The army had therefore to be disbanded, and its disappointed leader joined Wolfgang of Zweibrücken in an attempt to aid the Huguenots. Acting on the advice of Coligny, Orange issued letters of mark to seamen against the Spaniards; and for years the “sea beggars” harassed the enemy along the coast, and often did no little harm to their own countrymen. In 1572 the revolt against Spain was so far successful that Orange resumed the functions of stadtholder of Holland and Zealand, a position to which he had been appointed in 1559; but he professed to rule in the name of the king, for as yet the people had no wish to throw off their allegiance to the Spanish crown. Orange had won their confidence not only by acting as their champion but by accepting the Protestant faith. He had never been an enthusiastic Catholic, and as a Protestant he was distinguished among the eminent men of his time by his mastery of the true principles of toleration. Meanwhile he had been using the utmost diligence in bringing together an army, and his brother Louis, by a brilliant stroke, had captured the city of Mons. On 15th July 1572 the estates of Holland met at Dort, and, recognizing Orange as the legal stadtholder of Holland, Zealand, Friesland, and Utrecht, voted the sums necessary for the prosecution of the war. In August he crossed the Meuse at the head of an army, trusting mainly to the promised co-operation of France. All his hopes, however, were shattered by the massacre of St Bartholomew. He was obliged to disband his troops, and Mons was re-taken by the Spaniards. On 14th April 1574, at the village of Mook, near Nimeguen, the patriots were again routed, and Orange’s brothers, Louis and Henry, slain. But many fortified places held out, and on 3d October Orange, who had ordered the country to be inundated, was able to relieve Leyden, which had for months been defended with splendid bravery and self-sacrifice. At length the brutality and despotism of the Spaniards were so fiercely and generally resented that Orange was able to enter upon a series of negotiations, which resulted on 8th November 1576 in the pacification of Ghent, signed on behalf of nearly all the provinces. By this treaty the provinces bound themselves to drive the Spaniards from the Netherlands, to convoke the states-general, and to establish freedom of worship both for Roman Catholics and for Protestants.

Don John of Austria, Spanish regent of the Netherlands (1576-78), granted all the demands of the states; but Orange was suspicious of the intentions of the Government, and in nσ way relaxed his vigilance. Troubles soon broke out, and Orange was called to Brussels to the aid of the states, being elected τwwaaτd (governor) of Brabant. When the archduke Matthias (afterwards emperor) was invited by the Catholic nobles to accept the position of governor-general, Orange prudently refrained from resisting the scheme; and he acted with equal discretion in regard to the duke of Alençon, who came nominally as the protector of the liberties of the Netherlands. Orange, however, retained in his own hands complete control over the movement in the seven northern provinces, which by the Union of Utrecht, signed on behalf of five of the provinces on 23d January 1579, laid the foundations of the commonwealth of the United Netherlands. Orange’s relation to the new federal republic was somewhat vaguely defined; but in his lifetime it was not felt that there was any very urgent need for an exact delimitation of the relative functions of the executive and the legislative authorities. Negotiations for the conclusion of peace with Spain were carried on for some time in vain; and in 1580 Philip issued a ban against the prince, and set a price of 25,000 gold crowns upon his head. Orange pub lished a vigorous “apology,” and on 26th July 1581 the estates of the United Provinces formally renounced their allegiance to the Spanish crown. An unsuccessful attempt on the life of Orange was made in 1582. But on 10th July 1584 he was shot dead in his house at Delft by Balthazar Gerard, who seems to have been actuated in part by fanaticism, in part by the hope of gain.

William of Orange was tall and well-formed, of a dark complexion, with brown hair and eyes. He was a man of a singularly upright and noble character. He has been charged with excessive ambition; but his ruling motive was undoubtedly a love of justice, for the sake of which he often risked his life and willingly sacrificed his wealth and leisure. He was a born statesman, capable of forming wise and far-reaching plans, and of modifying them to suit the changing circumstances in which it was necessary to execute them. In moments of difficulty he displayed splendid resource and courage, and he had a will of iron, which misfortunes were never able either to bend or to break. To him chiefly belongs the honour of having permanently crippled the tyrannical power of Spain, and of having founded the independence and greatness of the United Provinces.

He was married four times. His wives were (1) Anne of Egmont (died 1558), by whom he had a daughter and a son, Philip William, who was seized by Alva in 1567 and sent to the court at Madrid, where he was educated; (2) Anne of Saxony (divorced in 1575, died in 1577), the mother of several daughters and of Maurice of Orange (see Holland, vol. xii. p. 77); (3) Charlotte of Bourbon (died 1582), who had six daughters; (4) Louisa, Coligny’s daughter, the mother of Frederick Henry of Orange floc. cit., p. 79), who represented the family after the death of his two elder brothers, and succeeded Maurice as stadtholder.

See Schiller, Geschichte des Abfalls der Vereinigten Niederlande ; Klose, Wilhelm I. von Oranien; Gachard, Correspondance de Guillaume le Taciturne and Correspondu nee de Philippe II. sur les Affaires des Pays-Bas ; Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou Correspondance Inédite de la Maison d’Orange -Nassau; Juste, Guillaume le Taciturne d'après sa Correspondance et les Papiers d’État ; Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic.

WILLIAM of Holland, second count of the name, was born about 1227, succeeded his brother Floris IV. in 1235, and was chosen king of the Romans by the papal party in 1247. See Germ:any, vol. x. p. 491, and Holland, vol. xii. p. 71. He died on 28th January 1256.

WILLIAM, archbishop of Tyre, was doubtless a native of the Holy Land. He was perhaps born about 1137; but this is a mere inference from his own statement that he was still pursuing his studies “across the seas” when Amalric came to the throne (17th February 1163), and did not return till late in 1166 or early in 1167. As a child he had seen Ralph, the patriarch of Antioch, who died about 1141-42; he remembered the fall of Edessa (December 1144); and he seems to call himself a contemporary historian from the accession of Baldwin III., an event which he dates 10th November 1142 {Hist. Per. Transmarin. i xvi., pref., and xix. 4, 12). Unfortunately the chapter (xix. 12) which relates to his own early life has been excised or omitted from every MS. of his great work now extant,—a remark which holds good, not only for the original Latin, but also for the 13th-century French translation. William was appointed archdeacon of Tyre at the request of Amalric on 31st August 1167. Next summer he was despatched on an embassy to the emperor Manuel. At the time of the disastrous campaign against Damietta (October—December 1169) he had to take refuge at Rome from the “unmerited anger” of his archbishop. About. 1170 he was appointed tutor to Amalric’s son Baldwin, afterwards Baldwin IV. A very few months after Baldwin’s accession William was made chancellor of the kingdom (c. October 1174), and less than a year later (13th June 1175) was consecrated archbishop of Tyre. The former office he still held in 1182. He belonged to the commission which negotiated with Philip of Flanders in 1177; and in the following October (1178) he was one of six bishops sent to represent the Latin Church of the East at the Lateran Council (19th March 1179). He returned home by way of Constantinople, where he stayed seven months (October 1179-April 1180) with Manuel. This is his last authentic appearance in history; but we know from his own works that he was writing his History in 1182 (xix. 20), and that it breaks off abruptly at the end of 1183 or the beginning of 1184. Some fifty years later his first continuator accused Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem, of having procured William’s death at Rome. This story, however, seems to be pure legend; nor perhaps is much more credit to be attached to the theory that identifies him with the archbishop of Tyre sent over to Europe to preach a new crusade in 1188. It is true that Matthew Paris speaks of Henry H.’s receiving the cross from the hands of “Willelmus episcopus Tyrensis”; but more contemporary writers omit the Christian name, while others write it Josce or Joscius.

If not the greatest, William of Tyre is at least among the greatest, of mediaeval historians. His Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum is the main authority for the Latin kingdom of the East between 1127, where Fulcher of Chartres leaves off, and 1184, where Ernoul takes up the narrative. It was translated into French in the 13th century, or possibly before the end of the 12th. A little later it was united to Ernoul ’ s chronicle or that of Bernard the Treasurer, and continued in more than one form to 1249, 1261, or 1275. In this shape the combined histories form the Livre d’ Outremer quoted by Joinville (cxvii. § 77),—the standard mediaeval account of the exploits of the Frankish warriors in the East. William’s own work consists of twenty-two books and a fragment (one chapter and a preface) of book xxiii. It extends from the preaching of the first crusade by Peter the Hermit and Urban II. to the end of 1183 or the beginning of 1184. Like William’s other work, the Historia de Orientalibus Principibus, it was undertaken at the request of Amalric, who was himself a lover of history and supplied the author with Arabic MSS.; but, whereas the latter book (now unfortunately lost) was mainly based upon the writings of a certain “Seith, the son of Patrick (Patricii), patriarch of Alexandria,” of the Historia Transmarina its author remarks, “In this work we have had no guide, whether Greek or Arab, but have had recourse to traditions only, save as regards a few things that we have ourselves seen.” The “traditions” here spoken of must be taken to include the Gesta Francorum of Tudebode, Raymund of Agiles, Fulcher of Chartres, and, above all, Albert of Aix. It is only with the accession of Baldwin I., even if so early as this, that William’s claim to originality can fairly be sustained; and even here his narrative, till towards the close of book xiii., is based upon that of Fulcher. From this point William of Tyre is indebted to no other historian. Of the remaining books two are devoted to the reign of Fulk (xiv.-xv.), three to that of Baldwin III. (xvi.-xviii. ), two to that of Amalric, and the rest to that of Baldwin IV.

No mediaeval writer, except perhaps Giraldus Cambrensis, possesses William’s power of delineating the physical and mental features of his heroes. Again, very few had his instinctive insight into what would be of real value to future ages: genealogy, topography, archaeology, social life (political and ecclesiastical), military matters and naval, all find a due exposition in his pages. It is hardly too much to say that from his work alone a fairly detailed map of the Levant, as it was in the 12th century, might be constructed; and it is impossible to praise too highly the scrupulous fidelity with which he defines nearly all the technical terms (whether relating to land or sea) of which he makes use. His chief fault is in the matter of chronology, where indeed he is not unfrequently at discord with himself. In the later books his information, even as regards what was taking place beyond the Nile or the Euphrates, as well as in Europe, is singularly exact. Nor did he consider any trouble too severe if by its means he might attain to the truth. Though a man of great learning and almost certainly acquainted with Arabic and Greek, he is as ready to enliven his pages with a country proverb as to embellish them with quotations from Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, or Plato. He was a prelate of pious character, inclined to see the judgment of God on the iniquities of his fellow-countrymen in every disaster that overtook his native land and every Saracen success.

WILLIAM ofChampeaux. See Scholasticism, vol. xxi. pp. 422-423.

WILLIAM of Lorris, the first author of the Roman de la Pose, derives his surname from a small town about equidistant from Montargis and Gien, in the old district of the Gâtinais, and in the present department of Loiret. This and the fact of his authorship may be said to be the only things positively known about him. The rubric of the poem, where his own part finishes, attributes Jean de Meung’s continuation to a period forty years later than William’s death and the consequent interruption of the romance. Arguing backwards, this death used to be put at about 1260; but Jean de Meung’s own -work has recently been dated earlier, and so the composition of the first part has been thrown back to a period before 1240. The author represents himself as having dreamed the dream which furnished the substance of the poem in his twentieth year, and as having set to work to “rhyme it” five years later. The general characteristics of the Roman will be found noticed under France (see vol. ix. p. 643). It may be added here that, though the later and longer part shows signs of greater intellectual vigour and wider knowledge than the earlier and shorter, William of Lorris has more poetry than his continuator, made a much greater impression on the spirit of his own and following ages, and is to all appearance more original. The great features of his four or five thousand lines are, in the first place, the extraordinary vividness and beauty of his word-pictures, in which for colour, freshness, and individuality he has not many rivals except in the greatest masters, and, secondly, the fashion of allegorical presentation, which, hackneyed and wearisome as it afterwards became, was evidently in his time new and striking. There are of course traces of it before, as in some romances, such as those of Raoul de Houdenc, in the troubadours, and in other writers; but it was unquestionably William of Lorris who fixed the style. And to have fixed a style which captivated Europe for at least two centuries, if not three, does not happen to many of the personages of literary history.

The most convenient edition of the Roman de la Rose is that of F. Michel (2 vols., Paris, 1864).

WILLIAM of Malmesbury. See Malmesbury, William of.

WILLIAM of Newburgh, born about 1136, was a canon of Newburgh in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and author of a valuable chronicle of English affairs from the Norman Conquest to 1197. He calls himself Gulielmus Parvus, and is frequently referred to as William Petyt or Little. His work (Gulielmi Neubrigensis Rerum A nglicarum Libri V.) was edited by Silvius at Antwerp in 1567 and by Hearne at Oxford in 1719 (3 vols. 8vo); the latest edition is that by H. C. Hamilton for the English Historical Society (Historia Rerum A nglicarum Willelmi Parvi, S. T.D., Ordinis Sancti Augustini Canonici Regularis in Coenobio B. Mariae de Novoburgo in Agro Eboracensi, 2 vols., 1856).

WILLIAM of Occam. See Occam.

WILLIAM of Wykeham (1324-1404), bishop of Winchester and chancellor of England, was born in 1324 at Wickham in Hampshire. His father was a yeoman; his mother is said to have been of noble descent. He was educated at the priory school, Winchester, at the cost of Sir John Scures, lord of the manor of Wickham and governor of Winchester Castle, who afterwards took him into his service. When he was twenty-two years old he passed into the service of Edingdon, bishop of Winchester. In 1347 the bishop introduced him to the king as a young man likely to be useful from his skill in architecture. Edward III., who ∙was then completing the Round Tower at Windsor, made him his chaplain. But his employment for some time was mainly secular: he acted as guardian of several of the king’s manors and as derk of the works at Henley and elsewhere. In 1356 he was appointed surveyor of the works at Windsor, and a little later surveyor and warden of several other castles. In 1359 he began the building of the great quadrangle to the east of the keep at

Windsor, a work which occupied ten years. This building established his fame as an architect. Two years after its completion he was employed to build Queenborough Castle (Kent). Meanwhile he was also gaining experience in affairs of state. In 1360 he must have been a member of the king’s council, for he appears as a witness to the ratification of the treaty of Brétigny. In 1364 he became keeper of the privy seal. In 1365 he was one of the commissioners to treat for peace with Scotland. And, although he was not yet in holy orders, he was loaded by the king with preferments, one of which, the living of Pulham in Norfolk, involved him (about 1360) in a dispute with the pope. In fact he had attained to such eminence that Froissart says, “At this time there reigned in England a priest called Sir William de Wican, so much in favour with the king that by him everything was done.”

Early in life William had received the tonsure; but it was not till 1362 that he was ordained deacon and priest. In 1363 he became archdeacon of Northampton, and provost and prebendary of Wells. Although at this time he possessed a number of prebends, it appears, from a return which he made in 1366 on account of a papal bull against pluralities, that he only held one benefice with cure of souls. On the translation of Bishop Edingdon in this year from Winchester to Canterbury William was nominated by the king to the vacant bishopric; but the pope withheld his confirmation for some time, and it was not till October 1367 that William was consecrated bishop of Winchester. A month previously he had been made chancellor of England. During his first chancellorship the war with France was renewed and went against the English. The blame for this fell in great measure on the ministry, and in 1371 William resigned the great seal. But in 1373 he was one of a committee of the Lords appointed to confer with the Commons on the question of an aid. About this time he fell out with John of Gaunt, with whom he had previously been on good terms. Since the overthrow of the clerical ministry in 1371 John of Gaunt had been practically head of the government, but the conduct of his supporters caused general discontent. In the “Good Parliament” of 1376 Lord Latimer was impeached, and the bishop was active in promoting his trial and punishment. This was a great blow to John of Gaunt. The death of the Black Prince in June 1376 enabled him to take his revenge. The bishop was attacked in the council on the ground of malversation and misconduct of public affairs during his chancellorship, condemned to pay an enormous fine, and deprived of the temporalities of his see. The other bishops took his side and regarded his punishment as an insult to their order. It was not, however, till after the accession of Richard II. (1377) that William recovered his position. He then received a full pardon, and was reconciled to John of Gaunt.

During the next ten years he became more and more clearly identified with the constitutional or Lancastrian party. In 1380 and 1381 he was named on commissions for the reform of the king’s household. In 1382 he took part in a conference with the Commons. Next year he successfully opposed a demand from the lords of the Scottish marches for a share in the public funds in order to defray the expense of guarding the border, a duty on the performance of which rested their title to their lands. In 1386 he became one of the commission appointed to examine into the Exchequer and to act as a sort of council of regency. It was before this commission that the five “lords appellant” impeached Richard H.’s favourites, who next year were condemned by the “Merciless Parliament.” A year later (1389) the king suddenly resumed the reins of power. In order, apparently, to conciliate the clergy, Richard at once offered the great seal to the bishop of Winchester, who after some hesitation accepted the charge. His second chancellorship lasted for two years, and was marked by efforts on his part to reform the government and place it on a more constitutional basis. After he had held office for a year he and his colleagues in the ministry resigned their appointments, and challenged a public inquiry into their conduct. This being pronounced satisfactory, they resumed their offices. The chancellor drew up rules for the conduct of business in the council; and from this time minutes of the proceedings were regularly kept. In 1391 he resigned the great seal, and thenceforward retired from public life.

It is, however, as the founder of two great colleges that William is principally known to fame. Immediately after his promotion to the bishopric of Winchester he appears to have begun to carry out his educational schemes. Between 1369 and 1379 he bought the land enclosed in the north-eastern corner of the city walls at Oxford on which New College now stands (see Oxford, vol. xviii. p. 97). Meanwhile he was taking steps to establish the sister foundation at Winchester. In 1378 he obtained a licence from the pope to found a college there, which was confirmed by the king four years later. The ground on which Winchester College stands belonged partly to the bishop and partly to other proprietors, from whom he bought it. In 1387 he began to build, and the buildings were occupied by his scholars in 1393, though they do not appear to have been finished till 1395. When his two colleges were established and endowed, he provided them with statutes, which after several revisions took their final form in 1400. Nor does he appear to have neglected his duties as a bishop. He visited and reformed the hospital of St Cross near Winchester; he corrected the abuses which had crept into the priory of St Swithin; and he rebuilt or transformed the nave of Winchester cathedral. He kept a strict watch on the clergy under his charge, endeavouring to ensure their efficiency by frequently moving them from one living to another, and he promoted the material prosperity of his diocese by repairs of bridges and roads. In the relations between England and the papacy William of Wykeham strongly supported the nationalist policy of Edward III. The Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire met with his full approval. So far he was in accord with Wycliffe, but he showed no sympathy with the doctrinal opinions of the reformer. Bishop Courtenay, who headed the attack on Wycliffe, was a lifelong friend of the bishop of Winchester, who published in 1382 the interdict condemning Wycliffe’s heresies, and in 1392 sat on an episcopal commission to try his follower Henry Crumpe. William of Wykeham died at Waltham on 27th September 1404, and was buried in the cathedral of Winchester.

Authorities.— The episcopal register of William of Wykeham (preserved at Winchester); Walsingham, Historia Anglicana ; Lowth, Life of William of Wykeham, London, 1758; Walcott, William of Wykeham and his Colleges, 1852; Moberly, Life of William of Wykeham, Winchester, 1887.

In 1051 William visited England (see vol. viii. p. 289)∙. Two years later he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin, earl of Flanders, and a descendant of Alfred. The marriage had been forbidden by a council at Rheims as uncanonical, and was opposed by Lanfranc, prior of Bee. This produced a quarrel between Lanfranc and William, who ravaged the lands of the abbey and ordered the banishment of its prior. Lanfranc, however, soon came to terms with the duke, and engaged to obtain a dispensation from Rome, which, however, was not granted till 1059. Strengthened by this alliance with Flanders, William showed himself more than a match for all his enemies. Henry, who had hitherto been for the most part friendly, now turned against him. After the suppression of some isolated revolts, William was threatened in 1054 by a great confederacy. His dominions were invaded by the forces of the French king, in combination with those of Geoffrey of Anjou, Theobald of Blois, and others. William remained at first on the defensive; then, falling suddenly on one of the French armies at Mortemer, in the north-eastern corner of his duchy, he cut it to pieces. This blow put an end to the war; Henry made peace (1055) and William took the opportunity of extending his dominions in a southerly direction. He built fresh fortresses and exacted homage from Count Geoffrey of Mayenne. In 1058 Henry and Count Geoffrey made a final effort to crush their dangerous neighbour; but the effort failed, like those which preceded it. William again allowed the allies to enter and ravage his territory; but, while the French army was crossing the Dive at Varaville, he attacked and completely destroyed their rear-guard, which was cut off from the van by the advancing tide. Henry again made peace, and soon afterwards died (1060). The death of Geoffrey of Anjou in the same year relieved William of his most formidable rival for the possession of Maine. Herbert Wake-Dog, the lawful ruler of that territory, who had been dispossessed by Geoffrey, recovered his dominions on the latter’s death. He at once “commended” himself to William, thus making the duke his heir. On his death in 1063 William took possession of Le Mans and the county of which it was the capital,—an acquisition which extended his southern frontier nearly to the Loire, almost severed Brittany from the rest of

France, and paved the way for the subsequent junction with Anjou.

It was apparently soon after this event, in the year 1064, that Harold, then earl of Wessex, visited Normandy. For the relations between him and William which grew out of this visit, see England, vol. viii. pp. 290-291. When Harold was elected and crowned king of England (1066), William’s first step was to send an embassy to him demanding the fulfilment of his promise. The purport of the demand is as uncertain as that of the pledge; but, whatever it was, Harold rejected it. The duke thereupon summoned a council of his supporters, who advised him to call together an assembly representing the whole duchy. This assembly, a typical feudal parliament, met at Lillebonne. While acting together it appears to have opposed the scheme for the conquest of England which William laid before it, but its members were won over singly. He then made a compact with Tostig, the banished brother of Harold; he came to terms with the emperor Henry; he conciliated Philip, king of France, by offering to hold England as his vassal; and—most important of all—he obtained the sanction of Rome. Pope Alexander II. not only issued a bull declaring William to be the rightful heir to the throne, but sent him a ring and a banner as symbols that the blessing of heaven was on his claim. Embarking at St Valéry, William landed on 28th September at Pevensey. The battle of Senlac or Hastings (14th October 1066) was a decisive victory for the duke of Normandy; but it took five years more to complete the conquest of England.

Early in 1067 William made a progress through the eastern and central parts of his new dominions. All that had as yet submitted to him was comprised in the old kingdoms of Wessex and East Anglia, and a small portion of Mercia. He at once secured his hold over these districts by the erection of fortresses in London, Norwich, and elsewhere. He received homage from the great men; he confiscated the lands of those who had resisted him; and, while keeping a large number of manors for himself, he granted others to his followers. Even those who had not resisted were regarded as having legally forfeited their title and had to submit to a re-grant on less advantageous terms. In March 1067 William returned to Normandy, taking with him as hostages the earls Eadwine, Morkere, and Waltheof. The revolts which broke out in the north and south-west compelled him to return to England in December. Early in 1068 he marched on Exeter, as the centre of the western revolt. He took the town and built a castle, after which he subdued Cornwall, and then marching northward forced Bristol to submit. In the summer of 1068 there was a general rising of the north, of which Eadgar was the nominal head; but Eadwine and Morkere were the moving spirits. The insurgents were aided by Malcolm, king of Scotland. William had, however, only to show himself in order to put down the insurrection. He journeyed northward, by way of Warwick and Nottingham, to York, received the submission of Eadwine, Morkere, and Malcolm, and returned by way of Lincoln and Cambridge. His march was accompanied by heavy confiscations, and great castles, rising in places of vantage, rendered the Norman power at once visible and secure. In the spring of 1069 a fresh revolt, broke out. Robert of Comines, the newly appointed earl of Northumberland, was slain at Durham; a Danish fleet entered the Humber, and a Danish army, joined by Eadgar and Waltheof, seized and burned York. The sons of Harold attacked Devon, while other isolated outbreaks took place in the west. These were speedily put down by William’s lieutenants; and in the autumn the king himself, going northward a second time, recovered York and harried Northumberland with ruthless deliberation. Returning to keep Christmas at York, he set out again in January 1070 to oppose Malcolm, who had crossed the border in aid of the insurgents. He forced Waltheof to submit, and drove the Scottish king back into his own country; then, marching over pathless fells in the depth of -winter, he reached Chester, took the town, and founded another castle. Northumbria, exhausted and ruined, gave up the struggle, and the omission of the northern counties from the Domesday survey throws a grim light on the completeness of the Conquest. In one district only, the fens of Cambridgeshire, where Hereward still held out, the spirit of resistance survived. In April 1071 William arrived at Cambridge and commenced a regular blockade. Advancing cautiously by means of a causeway through the fens, he entered Ely in October, and therewith the last flicker of independence died out. The conquest of England was completed. To guard against any fresh incitements to rebellion from Scotland, William in 1072 invaded that country and forced Malcolm to do him homage,—an event which had an important effect on the subsequent relations of the two countries.

Henceforward such trouble as William met with came, not from the English, but from his Norman vassals or his own family. In 1073 the citizens of Le Mans took advantage of his absence to set up a “commune,” and invited Fulk of Anjou to protect them. William was soon in the field, this time assisted by English troops. He harried the country, recovered Le Mans, and made an advantageous peace with the count. By a skilful compromise he recognized Fulk as overlord of Maine, but kept actual possession of the district, for which his son Robert did homage. A year later a formidable revolt broke out in England. Two of William’s great vassals, Ralph, earl of Norfolk, and Roger, earl of Hereford, rebelled, and a Danish fleet, probably in alliance with them, appeared in the Humber. William returned at once to England and put down the insurrection. A great meeting of the witan was summoned to try Roger and Waltheof, for the latter, though he took no part in the rebellion, had undoubtedly been privy to it. Roger was imprisoned for life and Waltheof was condemned to death. This was the last instance of opposition to William in England; but the remaining ten years of his life were occupied with almost continuous troubles on the Continent. In 1076 he was engaged in a war with Brittany, which the interference of Philip of France forced him to bring to an unsuccessful conclusion. Next year he quarrelled with his son Robert. Matilda took the young man’s side against her husband, and Philip lent him his assistance. In 1080 William was at open war with his son. While besieging him at Gerberoi he received a wound and was forced to raise the siege. A temporary reconciliation followed, soon to give way to another and a final quarrel. Three years later Matilda died, and troubles thickened upon William. A rebellious vassal, Hubert of Beaumont, seems to have held him at bay for nearly three years. Rival claims to Vexin, a district on the eastern frontier of Normandy, involved him in another war with France. He was growing old and weary, and, as he lay sick at Rouen in the summer of 1087, the French army harried his territories with impunity. When he had recovered sufficiently to take the field, he invaded Vexin and burned the town of Mantes. But his horse, plunging in the burning cinders, inflicted on him an internal injury which proved his death-wound. He was carried to St Gervais, where, on 9th September 1087, he died. His body was conveyed to Caen and buried in the great minster which he had built.

The career of William as a warrior and conqueror occupies of necessity the largest space in his life; but his fame as a statesman and administrator is not less than that which he won on the battlefield. This is not the place to discuss the results of the Conquest, but the policy of the Conqueror in regard to church and state cannot be overlooked. An orthodox churchman, a supporter of union under the successor of Peter against the schismatic tendencies of the English Church, he nevertheless repelled any claim on the part of Rome to interference with his political sovereignty. He allowed Peter’s pence to be collected, but refused to pay tribute to the pope. While recognizing him as head of the church, he declined to hold his kingdom as his vassal, nor would he permit papal bulls to enter England or excommunications to be issued against any of his subjects without his leave. He controlled all appointments to important ecclesiastical dignities; he made laws for the church; he dealt justice to ecclesiastics, high and low, in his own courts. At the same time he had no desire to humiliate the church; on the contrary, he sought to elevate it to a higher position in the state, to make it a more potent agent of civilization. A weaker statesman might have seen his own advantage in encouraging the rivalry between Canterbury and York; William strengthened the church by forcing the younger to give way to the elder see. With the same object, that of increasing the efficiency of ecclesiastical organization, he severed the temporal and spiritual jurisdictions and furthered the enforcement of clerical celibacy. Finally, the trust which he reposed in Lanfranc from the time of his appointment to the see of Canterbury in 1070 shows not only his insight into character but his respect for the head of the English Church.

In regard to temporal affairs William was rather an administrator than a lawgiver. His reign is not marked by a series of legislative acts like those of Henry II. or Edward I.; but his work was the indispensable preliminary to theirs, for a strong monarchy was the first requisite of the state. To establish the power of the crown was William’s principal care. The disintegrating tendencies of feudalism had already been visible under the Anglo-Saxon kings. William, while he established fully developed feudalism as a social, territorial, and military system in his new dominions, took measures to prevent it from undermining his own authority. He scattered the estates of his great vassals, so as to hinder them from building up provincial principalities; he maintained the higher popular courts against the encroachments of manorial jurisdictions; he prevented the claims of feudal lordship from standing between himself and the mass of his subjects by exacting an oath from every landholder at the meeting on Salisbury plain; finally, by the great survey which resulted in Domesday Book he not only asserted his right to make a general inquisition into property, but laid the firm basis of knowledge which was indispensable to centralized government and taxation. The care which he took to maintain English laws and institutions is part of the same policy. . He balanced the two nationalities over which he ruled, and obliged each to depend upon him as its leader or protector against the other. He ruled as an English king; his feudal council was the witenagemot with a new qualification; but at the same time he was lord of the land as no king had been before him, and he enjoyed not only all the income of his predecessors but in addition all the dues which came to him as feudal sovereign. He was thus perhaps the strongest and most absolute monarch that has ever sat upon the English throne.

In character William was stern, self-reliant, and imperious in a high degree. He was not naturally cruel; but he was ruthless if it served his purpose, and could take pitiless vengeance for an insult or a wrong. He was too strong to prefer deceit when force would serve as well, but his diplomacy was subtle and guileful, and no scruple turned him aside from his aim. His temper, originally forgiving, was soured by opposition towards the end of his life, and his tyrannical tendencies were strengthened by the long exercise of uncontrolled power. His passionate devotion to the chase is only too clearly shown in the harshness of his forest laws. In private life he displayed domestic virtues, and his fidelity to his wife was exceptional in the annals of his house and time.

Authorities, —william of Jumiéges, Hist. Norman., and William of Poitiers, Gesta Willelmi (both in Duchesne’s Hist. Norm. Script.) ; Wace, Roman de Rou; Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. E<xl.∙, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ; the Bayeux tapestry; Freeman, Hist, of Norman Conquest.

WILLIAM I. (1797-1888), king of Prussia and German emperor, was the second son of Frederick William III. of Prussia and Louisa, a princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. He was born at Berlin on 22d March 1797, and received the names of Wilhelm Friedrich Ludwig. He was a delicate child and had to be carefully nurtured. His constitution, however, was sound, and he became one of the most vigorous men in Germany. After the battle of Jena he spent three years at Königsberg and Memel. Meanwhile he had given evidence of sterling honesty, a strict love of order, and an almost passionate interest in everything relating to war. On 1st January 1807 he received an officer’s patent, and on 30th October 1813 was appointed a captain. William accompanied his father in the campaign of 1814, and early in the following year received the iron cross for personal bravery shown at Bar-sur-Aube. He took part in the entry into Paris on 31st March 1814, and afterwards visited London. He joined the Prussian army in the final campaign of the Napoleonic wars, and again entered Paris. The prince was made a colonel and a member of the permanent military commission immediately after his twentieth birthday, and at the age of twenty-one became a major-general. In 1820 he received the command of a division; and during the following nine years he not only made himself master of the military system of his own country but studied closely those of the other European states. In 1825 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, and obtained the command of the corps of guards. On 11th June 1829 he married Augusta of Saxe-Weimar.

On the death of his father in 1840—the new king, Frederick William IV., being childless—Prince William, as heir presumptive to the throne, received the title of prince of Prussia. He was also made lieutenant-governor of Pomerania and appointed a general of infantry. In politics he was decidedly Conservative; but at the outbreak of the revolutionary movement of 1848 he saw that some concessions to the popular demand for liberal forms of government were necessary. He urged, however, that order should be restored before the establishment of a constitutional system. At this time he was the best-hated man in Germany, the mass of the Prussian people believing him to be a vehement supporter of an absolutist and reactionary policy. He was even held responsible for the blood shed in Berlin on 18th March, although he had been relieved nine days before of his command of the guards. So bitter was the feeling against him that the king entreated him to leave the country for some time, and accordingly he went to London, where he formed intimate personal relations with Prince Albert, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, and other English statesmen. On 8th June he was back at Berlin, and on the same day he took his seat as member for Wirsitz in the Prussian national assembly, and delivered a speech in which he expressed belief in constitutional principles. In 1849, when the revolutionary party in the grand-duchy of Baden became dangerous, he accepted the command of “the army of operation in Baden and the Palatinate,” and his plans were so judiciously formed and so skilfully executed that in the course of a few days the rebellion was crushed. At the beginning of the campaign an unsuccessful attempt was made on his life. In October 1849 he was appointed military governor of the Rhineland and Westphalia, and took up his residence at Coblentz. In 1854 the prince was raised to the rank of a field-marshal and made governor of the confederate fortress of Mainz. When the king was attacked with a disease of the brain, Prince William assumed the regency (7th October 1858).

On 2d January 1861 Frederick William IV. died, and his brother succeeded him as William I. For the internal conflict between the king and the house of representatives on the question of military reorganization, which filled up the first years of his reign, see Germany (vol. x. p. 510) and Prussia (vol. xx. p. 12). The events and results of the war with Denmark, and of that with Austria which arose out of the Schleswig-Holstein question, belong to the history of Austria and of Prussia, and have been already described under those articles. The brilliant achievements of the army in this last contest finally convinced the king’s subjects that his aims had been wise. On his return to Berlin he was received with unbounded enthusiasm, and from this time he was looked up to as a father rather than as a sovereign. On the outbreak of the war with France in 1870 all Germans rallied round the king of Prussia, and, when on 31st July he quitted Berlin to join his army, he knew that he had the support of a united nation. He crossed the French frontier on the 11th of August, and personally commanded at the battles of Gravelotte and Sedan. It was during the siege of Paris, at his headquarters in Versailles, that he was proclaimed German emperor on 18th January 1871. On 3d March 1871 he signed the preliminaries of peace which had been accepted by the French assembly; and on 21st March he opened the first imperial parliament of Germany. On 16th June he triumphantly entered Berlin at the head of his troops.

After that period the emperor left the destinies of Germany almost entirely in the hands of Bismarck, who held the office of imperial chancellor (see Prussia). In his personal history the most notable events were two attempts upon his life in 1878,—one by a working lad called Hödel, another by an educated man, Karl Nobiling. On the first occasion the emperor escaped without injury, but on the second he was seriously wounded. These attacks grew out of the socialist agitation; and a new reichstag, elected for the purpose, passed a severe anti-socialist law, which was afterwards from time to time renewed. The socialists, however, far from being crushed, again and again gave proof of their power by returning a considerable number of deputies to parliament. In the hope of alienating from them the mass of the working class, Bismarck introduced, with the cordial approval of the emperor, a series of measures for the benefit of the poorer members of the community. Until within a few days of his death the emperor’s health was remarkably robust; he died at Berlin on 9th March 1888.

The reign of William I. marked an era of vast importance in the history of Germany. In his time Prussia became the first power in Germany and Germany the first power in Europe. These momentous changes were due in a less degree to him than to Bismarck and Moltke; but to him belongs the credit of having recognized the genius of these men, and of having trusted them absolutely. Personally William was a man of a singularly noble and attractive character. His supreme wish was to discharge loyally the duties which had been imposed upon him, and he never shrank from any personal sacrifice that seemed to be demanded in the interests of his people. The best traditions of the Hohenzollerns were maintained, not only by the splendour of the achievements with which his name will always be intimately associated, but by the simplicity, manliness, and uprightness of his daily life.

WILLIAM I., king of the Netherlands from 1815 to 1840, was born at The Hague on 24th August 1772, and died at Berlin on 7th November 1843. His son, William II. (1792-1849), reigned from 1840, and was in turn succeeded by his son, William III. (born 1817). See Holland, vol. xii. p. 83.

Two years later William sent an army to Normandy (Easter 1090), which under the misgovernment of Robert had lapsed into a state of anarchy. The re-conquest of the duchy by England was begun by the capture of St Valéry; but there was not much fighting, place after place yielding to William’s lieutenants or to English gold. Robert called King Philip to his aid, but William bribed him to retire. In Rouen itself a popular movement took place for the surrender of the town; but Henry, the duke’s youngest brother, put a stop to it by killing its leader, Conan, with his own hands. In February 1091 William himself crossed the Channel, and at once received homage from many of his brother’s subjects. Unable to resist, Robert consented to a disgraceful peace. By the treaty of Caen William engaged to pay Robert a sum of money, in return for which he received some of the most important districts of eastern Normandy, as well as Cherbourg and other places in the west. It was agreed, among other stipulations, that whichever brother died first the other should succeed to his dominions. Later in the same year William marched against Malcolm III., who had invaded Northumberland, and, penetrating as far as the Firth of Forth, obliged the Scottish king to do him homage. "Whether it was for the whole of Scotland or for Lothian only, history does not say; but the latter is most probable. For an account of the subsequent relations between Malcolm and William, see Scotland, vol. xxi. p. 481. Meanwhile war had broken out again with Normandy. At Christmas 1093 Robert sent a challenge to his brother, reproaching him with violations of the treaty. Accordingly in March 1094 William invaded Normandy a second time. On this occasion fortune turned against him. Philip assisted the duke, and William, who had exhausted his supplies, was unable to buy him off as before. In this predicament his justiciar, Ralph Flambard, assembled an English army on the pretext of an expedition to Normandy, took from each man the money which had been provided for his expenses, and then dismissed the soldiers to their homes. With the money so obtained William bribed the French king, and then returned to England. Next year the first crusade was being preached, and Robert took the cross. A peace was made between the brothers through papal mediation, William supplying Robert with funds, for the repayment of which the latter pledged his duchy. When, in September 1096, Robert set off for the crusade, William took possession of Normandy, where he soon put an end to the anarchy which had resulted from Robert’s misrule; and he held the country till his death. Shortly before the acquisition of Normandy William had subdued a second rebellion in England. Robert of Mowbray was again one of the chief conspirators, and he was joined by William of Saint-Calais, whom the king, in accordance with the treaty of Caen, had restored to his bishopric, and by others. Mowbray refused to obey a summons to the king’s court, whereupon William marched against him, captured his castles of Bamborough and Tynemouth, and took him prisoner (1095). As on the suppression of the earlier rebellion, William called a great assembly, this time consisting of all his tenants-in-chief, and by their judgment the rebels were condemned. During the next two years he made a serious attempt at the conquest of Wales. The southern portion of the principality had been to a great extent reduced, first by Harold, afterwards by the Norman border lords. William’s efforts were mainly directed against the northern districts. He made three invasions, and penetrated to Snowdon, but seeming victories were immediately followed by revolts, and in the end little ground was actually won.

The last three years of the 11th century were much occupied by tedious wars with France and efforts to recover Maine. In 1097 he quarrelled with Philip about Vexin, and crossed the Channel to make good his claim to that district; but the French king was able to hold his own. Next year William set about the recovery of Maine. That territory had been allowed by Robert to slip out of his hands, and had been governed since 1091 by Helias de la Flèche. William’s vassal, Robert of Bellême, attacked Helias, and, having succeeded in taking him prisoner, handed over his prize to the king. William thereupon marched into Maine, and a desultory war of forays, sieges, and skirmishes followed. Fulk of Anjou opposed the Norman claim; but in August 1098 a treaty was made, by which William’s rights over the country were recognized, and Helias was at the same time set free. William now turned again to France. Strengthened by an alliance with the duke of Aquitaine, he invaded the French territory and advanced as far as Pontoise. But, tiring of the fruitless war, he made a truce with Philip and returned to England early in 1099. He had only been there a few months when he heard that Helias de la Flèche was attacking his castles in Maine and had won back Le Mans. He crossed the Channel with great speed, and’ a last campaign replaced him in possession of the coveted borderland. But he took no pains to secure his hold, and the Norman power in Maine fell to pieces immediately on his death.

William H.’s relations with Anselm form perhaps the most important episode of his reign. Lanfranc died in 1089. The worst features of William’s character began at once to show themselves. At the instigation or with the assistance of Ralph Flambard, he applied to the possessions of the church all the principles of feudal law developed in the interest of the monarchy. He treated vacant benefices as if they had been lay fiefs and bishops as tenants-in-chief, while he made simony the rule and degraded the heads of the church into servile courtiers. He had kept the see of Canterbury vacant for nearly four years, when a severe illness aroused him to a sense of his enormities. Sending for Anselm, at that time abbot of Bee, he forced the crozier into his unwilling hands (1093). Anselm insisted on three conditions,—that the temporalities of the see should be fully restored, that William should act in ecclesiastical affairs by his counsel, and that he should be allowed to recognize Urban II. as pope. After some hesitation William yielded the first demand, and Anselm did homage for the temporalities. The other two demands remained unsettled. In December 1093 Anselm was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. On the outbreak of war against Normandy in 1094 Anselm offered William a contribution of £500. William declared the sum insufficient and angrily rejected the gift. Anselm refused to offer more, lest he should seem, even by a gift after his appointment, to be guilty of simony. Other grounds of quarrel were found in the reproofs which the archbishop levelled against the vices of the court, and his demand for ecclesiastical reform. In 1095 a more serious dispute arose. Anselm asked leave to go to Rome in order to obtain his pallium from the pope. As this involved a recognition of Urban, and William wished to secure his independence by acknowledging no pope, the permission was refused. The archbishop demanded that the question should be discussed at a great council. Accordingly an assembly was held at Rockingham (March 1095), in which Anselm was treated by the king as if he had been on trial for contumacy. The bishops sided with the king; the laity took part mostly with the primate. Anselm refused to renounce allegiance to the pope, but denied that this was incompatible with obedience to the king. The assembly broke up without coming to a decision. William now tried to win over the pope and received a legate who brought with him the pall. In the hope of getting the legate to suspend Anselm, he consented to recognize Urban. But, when he found that the pope had no intention of throwing over the archbishop, he reconciled himself with Anselm and allowed him to take the pall from the altar at Canterbury. But it was not long before he found an opportunity of taking his revenge. A contingent of knights sent by the primate to aid the king in his Welsh war (1097) was declared to be worthless, and Anselm was summoned to explain his conduct at court. Tired of the persecution and despairing of reform, Anselm again asked leave to go to Rome. William, believing, whether rightly or not, that Anselm intended to appeal against him, refused his request. Twice repeated, it met with the same answer. Anselm was charged with having broken his oath to observe the laws of the kingdom in threatening to leave England without the king’s permission. He answered that he had only sworn to the laws subject to his duty to God and the verdict of his conscience. This answer alienated many who had supported him on the previous occasion. He was asked to swear that he would not appeal against the king, and on his refusal was ordered to leave the country. In October 1097 Anselm left England. William at once seized the archbishopric and kept possession of it till his death.

The unscrupulous tyranny which Rufus displayed in his quarrel with Anselm was equally characteristic of his temporal government. The feudal customs of aids, reliefs, escheats, &c., were developed into a great system of extortion. The townsfolk and the cultivators of the soil were weighed down by heavy taxes. The forest laws were carried out with ruthless severity. On the other hand, order was maintained, and the tyranny was to a certain extent veiled or limited by the frequent use which William made of his great councils, in the trials of great men like Odo, in the declaration of war, in the settlement of disputes such as that with Anselm. It is clear that the national assembly was neither extinct nor inefficient during this reign. It was in this period too that the office of justiciar became permanent in the person of William’s chief minister, Ralph Flambard, although in his hands its powers were used merely in support of despotism.

In his private character William was as vicious as in his public capacity he was tyrannical. He was harsh and violent, extravagant and lustful, regardless of God and pitiless to man. He had a strong vein of mockery and sarcasm, and no little of the grim Norman humour. Almost the only redeeming feature of his character is his chivalrous observation of his plighted word; but for ordinary promises or obligations he had no respect. He died under mysterious circumstances in the New Forest, Hampshire, on 2d August 1100. William II. was not married; he was succeeded by his brother Henry.

Authorities.— Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica; Geoffrey Gaiιnar, Histoire des Angles; Eadmer, Historia Novorwm; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Freeman, Reign of William Rufus.

When, however, France and England declared war upon the Netherlands in the spring of 1672, the rapid success of the French arms, and the rejection by Louis of the terms offered by the Dutch Government, produced a revolution in favour of William. A popular rising obliged De Witt to repeal the perpetual edict (which ratified the suppression of the stadtholdership in 1667), and on 8th July 1672 the prince of Orange was declared by the states-general stadtholder, captain-general, and admiral for life. The revolution was followed by a riot in which John and Cornelius de Witt lost their lives. There appears no evidence connecting William with the attack on the De Witts; but he made no attempt to punish it: on the contrary, he rewarded the leaders. Then, rejecting the outrageous terms offered by the allies, he placed his private fortune and the revenues of his offices at the disposal of the state, and declared himself ready to die in the last ditch. In order to check the French advance the sluices were opened and vast tracts of country placed under water. The Dutch fleet prevented an English landing. An alliance was made with the elector of Brandenburg, whose forces effected a useful diversion on the eastern frontier. Next year (1673) William lost Maestricht, but he more than balanced this disaster by treaties with Spain and the empire. Tlιe war now began to turn in his favour. Early in 1674 the French troops evacuated Holland, and in February of the same year peace was made with England in the treaty of Westminster. As the tide turned, William’s allies became more active in his behalf. The league of The Hague, the first of those great coalitions by which he sought to set a limit to the aggressions of Louis XIV., was joined by the elector of Brandenburg, who had been obliged a year before to come to terms with France, and by several other German princes. In Flanders William himself opposed Condé and fought the indecisive battle of Seneffe (August 1674). For the next two years the war dragged on without very important results. William, although he had saved Holland, could not prevent France from winning places at the expense of the empire and Spain. In April 1677 he was decisively beaten by the duke of Orleans near St Omer. A great part of the Spanish Netherlands as well as Franche Comté was now in the hands of France. These advances caused much alarm in England; and the prince of Orange linked himself closer to that country by marrying Mary, elder daughter of James, duke of York, in November 1677. Early next year William signed a treaty of alliance with England, the object of which was to compel Louis to come to terms. The duplicity of Charles and the attitude of the country party in England, anxious for war with France but unwilling to put an army into the king’s hands, prevented this arrangement from taking effect. A fresh treaty was, however, made between the two powers (July), and the pressure thus brought to bear upon Louis led to the peace of Nimeguen (August 1678). Four days after the peace was signed William attacked the French army under the duke of Luxembourg in its entrenchments round Mons. A sanguinary but resultless battle ensued. William attempted to justify this bloodshed by the insufficient and incredible plea that he was not aware that the peace had been signed. He can hardly have wished to prolong the war; but it is not surprising if he was dissatisfied with a peace which gave Franche Comté and many places in the Spanish Netherlands to France.

During the years which immediately followed the peace of Nimeguen, Louis’s aggressive proceedings provoked a general uneasiness, of which the prince of Orange made skilful use. The French king had seized on William’s ancestral principality of Orange in the south of France. William declared publicly that he would make Louis repent the outrage, and when called on to withdraw his words refused to do so. Personal affront was thus added to the national grounds of his hostility. The second of his coalitions against France began by a treaty between the Netherlands and Sweden (October 1681) for the maintenance of the peace of Nimeguen, which was soon joined by the empire and Spain, and by several of the German states. When, however, Louis declared war on Spain, invaded the Spanish Netherlands, and even took Luxemburg (1683-84), William could not persuade the states-general to raise an army, and the allied powers acquiesced in the truce of Ratisbon, which left the French king in possession of all that he had won (1685). Certain claims on the Palatinate which Louis urged on behalf of his sister-in-law, the duchess of Orleans, gave William an occasion for organizing a further combination against him. In July 1686 the emperor, with the kings of Spain and Sweden, acting as members of the empire, and the most important German princes entered into the league of Augsburg, which, however, William did not himself join.

Meanwhile, as heir presumptive to the English throne, he paid close attention to what was passing in England. He sought to win Charles by sheltering the duke of Monmouth during the exile to which his father had unwillingly condemned him. The same motives led him to dismiss the duke when James II. succeeded his brother, and to discourage the attempt which Monmouth made to win the crown. He also endeavoured to stop Argyll and his friends when they were setting out for England; and he tried to dissuade Monmouth from his rash expedition, and to induce him to take service against the Turks in Hungary, and, when this failed, he sought, with as little success, to prevent his crossing to England. Throughout the whole crisis he showed a scrupulous regard for the interests of his father-in-law, which fortunately coincided with his own; but at the same time he astutely avoided any step which would have alienated from him the constitutional party. When, however, James II. began to show himself in his true colours, William became the head of the opposition in England. As such, he strongly disapproved of the first Declaration of Indulgence (1686) and remonstrated with James on the unconstitutional nature of his act. When the king requested him, a year later, to place Papists instead of Protestants in command of the English regiments then in the service of Holland, he declined to do so, and rejected with equal firmness a demand from James that he should send the troops back to England. Nevertheless he refused to listen to Mordaunt’s premature suggestion that he should undertake an invasion in 1686, and, even when Edward Russell visited him at The Hague (May 1688), he was unwilling to move till he was assured that the majority of the nation would be with him. The letter, signed by seven leaders of the two great English parties, which Admiral Herbert carried to Holland (June 30) set his scruples at rest.

On 30th September he issued a declaration in which he recapitulated James’s unconstitutional acts, and stated that he was coming to England in order to secure the assembling of a free parliament, by whose decision he was resolved to abide. On 2d November he sailed from Holland, and three days later landed at Torbay. At first only few persons joined him, but presently the gentry began to come in. James, who had massed his troops at Salisbury, was compelled by William’s advance and by the desertion of Churchill and others to fall back upon London. Here he attempted to treat with the invader. William, anxious to avoid all appearance of conquest, consented to negotiate, and it was agreed that a parliament should be summoned, both armies meanwhile holding aloof. James, however, attempted to leave the country, but was stopped and returned to Whitehall. For a moment he seemed to contemplate resistance, but William now insisted on his retiring from London. His final flight relieved the prince of a great difficulty. On 19th December William arrived in London, and at once called a meeting of peers and others who had sat in the parliaments of Charles H.’s reign. By their advice he summoned a convention, which met on 22d January 1689 and settled the crown on William and Mary, who, after accepting the Declaration of Rights, were on 13th February proclaimed king and queen.

The revolution had so far succeeded beyond expectation; but William’s difficulties had only begun. His primary object was to bring England into the field against France. But he had first to secure his own throne, which was still endangered by resistance in Scotland and Ireland; in order to do it with effect he had to gain the good will of the English parliament and to harmonize or control its two great factions, which, momentarily united by the imminence of despotism, were again almost on the verge of civil war. He wished to be superior to party, which he could only become by being independent of parliament, and this the revolution had rendered impossible. The revolution was due mainly to the Whigs, who were therefore William’s natural allies; but the political principles of the Whigs led them to curtail the power of the sovereign. The principles of the Tories were much more to his taste; but the Tories were disinclined to apply their principles on behalf of a sovereign whose title they could not conscientiously acknowledge. In selecting his first ministry William endeavoured to conciliate both sides and to hold the balance even. He eventually saw that such a policy was impracticable, and that, the nation having arrived at its majority, ministers must represent the party which was strongest in parliament. His natural reluctance to recognize this change, or to give up any of the powers which his predecessors had possessed, led to not unfrequent collisions with parliament and exposed him to some humiliation, while the struggle between the two parties at times reduced him to despair, and constantly hampered his action on the Continent.

For nearly a year and a half after William’s acceptance of the crown he was occupied in forming the coalition against Louis XIV. known as the Grand Alliance. As stadtholder of the United Netherlands, William had already entered into an alliance with the emperor. In December he joined the league as king of England, and in 1690 the coalition was completed by the adhesion of Spain, Brandenburg, and Savoy. William had thus gained his first great object: he had united Europe against the Bourbon. Meanwhile, however, his arms had made little progress in Scotland and Ireland. James had landed in Ireland in March 1689 and nearly the whole island was in his hands. The relief of Londonderry (July) and the battle of Newtown Butler (August) saved the north for William, but elsewhere Schomberg could make no way. In Scotland the convention had offered the crowm to William and Mary; but in the battle of Killiecrankie (July) the clans under Dundee had routed William’s army. The convention, which shortly after his accession had been turned into a parliament, met for its second session in the autumn of 1689, and the two parties quarrelled so violently over the Corporation and Indemnity Bills that William threatened to leave the country. He was induced by Nottingham and Shrewsbury to give up this intention, but in January 1690 he dissolved the parliament. William put an end to the quarrel about the indemnity by issuing an Act of Grace, which gave an almost complete amnesty; and, after placing the government in the hands of the queen and a council of nine persons, he left for Ireland. The defeat of the English and Dutch fleets off Beachy Head and the repulse of the allied forces at Fleurus (June and July 1690) were severe blows to William’s hopes; but the former led to no important results and the latter was more than balanced by the victory which William won at the battle of the Boyne (1st July 1690). James fled from the country, and William entered Dublin in triumph. In September he returned to England, leaving Marlborough to conquer the south of Ireland in a short but brilliant campaign. Meanwhile the resistance in Scotland had collapsed, and Mackay reduced the Highlands to tranquillity. In 1691 William was able to go abroad and to take the command in Flanders, where, however, his efforts were unsuccessful.

The next year (1692) opened with the massacre of Glencoe. It is improbable that, in signing an order for the “extirpation” of the Macdonalds, he intended that the order should be literally executed. Nevertheless, the order came from him, and he cannot be acquitted of all blame. About the same time the insecurity of his position was shown by the discovery of Marlborough’s treachery; and Marlborough did not stand alone. While many whom William trusted or appeared to trust were intriguing with James, an invasion of England was being organized by the French Government. Fortunately, and in great measure owing to the politic conduct of Mary, the commanders of the fleet were induced to stand firm, and the great victory of La Hogue (19th May 1692) put a stop to the projected invasion. But the fortune of war went against William on the Continent. He could not save Nàmur from the French, and he was severely defeated in an attempt to surprise the duke of Luxembourg at Steenkerke (4th August 1692). Next year he was again beaten by the same commander at Neerwinden (19th July). The battle of La Hogue had not given England the command of the seas, and French privateers inflicted great damage on English trade. In June 1693 the Smyrna fleet was almost entirely destroyed off Cape St Vincent.

In spite of these reverses William struggled on with indomitable courage, and he was well supported by the country. Parliament, under the skilful guidance of Montague, adopted various important financial measures to meet the expenses of the war. The land-tax was re-assessed, the national debt created, the Bank of England established, and the coinage renewed (1693-95). In 1694 William confirmed the parliamentary system by giving his consent, though an unwilling consent, to the Triennial Act, and he recognized the principles of ministerial government by modifying the ministry, until in 1696 it was in thorough harmony with the parliamentary majority. In 1695 William won his first important success on the Continent by recovering Namur, and, though no advance was made by the allies next year, the exhaustion of France was becoming more and more evident. At length, in March 1697, a congress met at Ryswick, and in September peace was made. Louis was obliged to give up all (with the exception of Strasburg) that he had added to his dominions since 1678, and he recognized William as king of England. With the conclusion of the war the dread of a standing army revived in England, and, much to William’s disgust, a vote of parliament reduced the military force to 10,000 men, although the question of the Spanish succession (see vol. ix. p. 580) was pending. The new parliament which met early in 1699 reduced the army still further and resolved that it should consist solely of English troops, thus compelling William to dismiss his favourite Dutch guards. They went on to institute an inquiry into the manner in which the forfeited estates in Ireland had been disposed of, and in their second session (November 1699) they passed a bill for the “resumption” of these estates. William died on 8th March 1702 from the consequences of a fall from his horse on 20th February.

Authorities.— Burnet, History of his own Times ; Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV. ∖ Negotiations of the Count d ’ Avaux (London, 1754); Négociations relatives à la Succession d’Espagne, &c., collected by Mignet (Paris, 1835); Lettres et Mémoires de Marie, Reine d:Angleterre, &c. (The Hague, 1880); Harris, History of the Life and Reign of William III. (Dublin, 1749); Mackintosh, History of the Revolution vn England ; Macaulay, History of England ; Ranke, English History.

In 1789 he was made duke of Clarence. When war was declared against the French republic in 1793, he strongly supported it and was anxious for active employment; but, though he was made rear-admiral of the red, he could obtain no command. Thus condemned to inactivity, he amused or revenged himself by joining the prince of Wales and the duke of York in their opposition to the king. He threw himself into the dissipations of society, and his hearty geniality and bluff, sailor-like manners gained him popularity, though they did not secure him respect. He took his seat in the House of Lords, where he defended the extravagancies of the prince of Wales, spoke on the Divorce Bill, vehemently opposed the emancipation of slaves, and defended slavery on the ground of his experience in the West Indies. Meanwhile he formed a connexion with Mrs Jordan, the actress, with whom he lived on terms of mutual affection and fidelity for nearly twenty years, and the union was only broken off eventually for political reasons. During all this period the prince had lived in comparative obscurity. The death of Princess Charlotte in 1817 brought him forward as in the line of succession to the crown. In 1818 he married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, a lady half his age, without special attractions, but of a strong, self-willed nature, which enabled her subsequently to obtain great influence over her husband. On the death of the duke of York in 1827 the duke of Clarence became heir to the throne, and in the same year he was appointed lord high admiral. 1n discharging the functions of that office he endeavoured to assume independent control of naval affairs, although his patent precluded him from acting without the advice of two members of his council. This involved him in a quarrel with Sir George Cockburn, in which he had to give way. As he still continued to act in defiance of rules, the king was at length obliged to call upon him to resign.

On 28th June 1830 the death of George IV. placed him on the throne. During the first two years of his reign England underwent an agitation more violent than any from which it had suffered since 1688. William IV. was well-meaning and conscientious; but his timidity and irresolution drove ministers to despair, while his anxiety to avoid extremes and his want of insight into affairs prolonged a dangerous crisis and brought the country to the verge of revolution. Immediately after his accession the revolution of July broke out in France and gave a great impulse to the reform movement in England. The king, though he called himself an “old Whig,” did not dismiss the Tory ministry which had governed the country during the last two years of his brother’s reign; but the elections for the new parliament placed them in a minority. Within a fortnight of the opening of parliament they were beaten on a motion for the reform of the civil list, and resigned. Lord Grey undertook to form a ministry, with the avowed intention of bringing in a large measure of reform. This was not in itself displeasing to the king, who had liberal tendencies, and a few years before had supported Catholic emancipation. But, when the struggle in parliament began, his disinclination to take up a decided attitude soon exposed the Government to difficulties. The first Reform Bill was introduced on 1st March 1831; the second reading was carried on 21st March by a majority of one. Shortly afterwards the Government were beaten in committee, and offered to resign. The king declined to accept their resignation, but at the same time was unwilling to dissolve, although it was obvious that in the existing parliament a ministry pledged to reform could not retain office. From this dilemma William was rescued by the conduct of the opposition, which, anxious to bring on a change of ministry, moved an address against dissolution. Regarding this as an attack on his prerogative, William at once dissolved parliament (April 1831). The elections gave the ministry an overwhelming majority. The second Reform Bill was brought in in June, and passed its third reading (21st September) by a majority of 109. A fortnight later (8th October) the Lords threw out the Bill by a majority of 4L For an account of the subsequent stages of the struggle, see Grey, vol. xi. pp. 191-192.

During the rest of his reign William ΓV. had not much opportunity of active political interference, but on one other occasion he made an unjustifiable use of his prerogative. Two years after the passing of the Reform Bill the ministry of Lord Grey had become unpopular. In July 1834 Lord Grey himself retired and Lord Melbourne took the lead. There were divergences of opinion in the cabinet, and the king strongly objected to the ministerial policy respecting the Irish Church. On the shallow pretext that Lord Al thorp’s removal to the Upper House would weaken the ministry in the House of Commons, where, however, they still had a majority, he suddenly dismissed them and summoned Sir Robert Peel (14th November). Peel’s ministry, containing many members who had been in the government on the king’s accession, was called from its short duration “the ministry of the hundred days.” Its formation clearly indicated that the Whig proclivities of the king, which had never been more than partial or lukewarm, had wholly disappeared. The step was regarded with general disapprobation. It was immediately followed by a dissolution, and the ministry soon found themselves in a minority. Beaten on Lord John Russell’s motion respecting the Irish Church (3d April 1835), Peel resigned and Melbourne again came into power. Under him the Whigs retained the lead during the remainder of the reign. This coup d’êtat of November 1834 was the last occasion on which the English sovereign has attempted to impose an unpopular ministry on the majority in parliament.

In May 1837 the king began to show signs of debility, and died from an affection of the heart on the 20th of June, leaving behind him the memory of a genial, frank, warmhearted man, but a blundering, though well-intentioned prince. He w as succeeded by his niece Victoria.

Authorities.—Correspondence of Earl Grey with William IV. and Sir Herbert Taylor, London, 1867; Fitzgerald’s Life and Times of William IV. ; Greville’s Memoirs', Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel; Civil Correspondence of the Duke of Wellington ; Walpole’s History of England·, Martineau’s History of the Peace·, Molesworth’s History of England.

WILLIAM IV. (1532-1592), landgrave of Hesse, well known as an astronomer, son of Philip the Magnanimous, was born at Cassel on 14th June 1532. During his father’s captivity after the battle of Mühlberg (1547) he carried on the government in his name for five years, and succeeded him on his death in 1567. At an early age he became interested in astronomy; and in 1561 he built an observatory at Cassel, where observations were regularly made, first by himself, afterwards by Rothmann and Bürgi. The last-named was not only a very skilful mechanic (it seems probable that he applied the pendulum to clocks long before Huygens did) but an original mathematician, who independently invented logarithms. William died on 25th August 1592.

Most of the mechanical contrivances which made Tycho Brahe’s instruments so superior to those of his contemporaries were adopted at Cassel about 1584, and from that time the observations made there seem to have been about as accurate as Tycho’s; but the resulting longitudes were 6' too great in consequence of the adopted solar parallax of 3'. The principal fruit of the observations was a catalogue of about a thousand stars, the places of which were determined by the methods usually employed in the 16th century, connecting a fundamental star by means of Venus with the sun, and thus finding its longitude and latitude, while other stars could at any time he referred to the fundamental star. It should be noticed that clocks (on which Tycho Brahe depended very little) were used at Cassel for finding the difference of right ascension between Venus and the sun before sunset; Tycho preferred observing the angular distance between the sun and Venus when the latter was visible in the day time. The Hessian star catalogue was published in Lucius Barettus’s Historia Coelestis (Augsburg, 1668), and a number of other observations are to be found in Caeli et Siderum in eo Errantium Observationes Hassiacae, Leyden, 1618, edited by Snellius (q.v.). R. Wolf, in his “Astronomische Mittheilungen,” No. 45 (Vierteljahrsschrift d. naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 1878), has given a résumé of the manuscripts still preserved at Cassel, which throw much light on the methods adopted in the observations and reductions.

Williams was probably on the whole one of the most successful of Christian missionaries, both as regards the extent and the permanence of the work he accomplislιed. His Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands was published in 1837, and formed an important contribution to our knowledge of the islands with which Williams was acquainted. See Memoir of John Williams, by Rev. Ebenezer Prout, London, 1843.

WILLIAMS, Roger (c. 1600-c. 1684), one of the founders of the colony of Rhode Island, North America, was born either of Welsh or Cornish parents, but this as well as the date of his birth has been the subject of dispute. In early life he went to London, where his skill as a reporter commended him to the notice of Sir Edward Coke, who sent him to Sutton’s Hospital (Charterhouse school). From Charterhouse he went to one of the universities, but whether to Oxford or Cambridge there is no direct evidence to show. The register of Jesus College, Oxford, has the following entry under date 30th April 1624: “Rodericus Williams, filius Gulielmi Williams, de Conwelgaio Pleb., an. Nat. 18.” If this entry refers to the founder of Rhode Island he was of Welsh parentage and born about 1606. As Coke was a Cambridge student, the probability is, however, that Williams was sent there; and a Roger Williams matriculated at Pembroke College of that university on 1st July 1625, and took his B.A. degree in January 1627. This Roger Williams was the second son of William Williams, and was baptized at Gwinsea, Cornwall, on 24th July 1600, a date which corresponds with a statement regarding his age made by Williams himself. After leaving the university he entered on the study of law; but, soon forsaking it for theology, he was admitted into holy orders and is said to have had a parochial charge. On account of his Puritan beliefs he left England for Massachusetts Bay, where he arrived in the beginning of 1631. He accepted an invitation to become pastor of a church at Salem, on 12th April 1631, the same day that the magistrates were assembled at Boston to express disapproval of the scheme. To escape persecution he went to Plymouth, beyond the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay, and became assistant pastor there; but in the autumn of 1633 he returned to Salem as assistant pastor, succeeding in the following year as sole pastor. Chiefly on account of his pronounced opinions regarding the restricted sphere of the civil magistrate in religious matters, he came into conflict with the court of Massachusetts, and, being banished from the colony, left with a few sympathizers in January 1636 for Narragansett Bay. At first they received a grant of land from an Indian chief, which is now included in Seekonk, Massachusetts, and began to build houses, but in June following he and five others embarked in a canoe for Rhode Island, and founded a settlement to which Williams, in remembrance “of God’s providence to him in his distress,” gave the name of Providence. In 1639 he was publicly immersed and became pastor of the first Baptist church of Providence. As Massachusetts now began to claim jurisdiction over Narragansett Bay, Williams proceeded in June 1643 to England, and through the mediation of his friend Sir Henry Vane, whose acquaintance he had made at Massachusetts, obtained an independent charter, 14th March 1644. In 1649 he was chosen deputy president. He again visited England in 1651 to obtain a more explicit charter, and remained there till 1654, enjoying the friendship of Milton, Cromwell, and other prominent Puritans. On his return to the colony in 1654 he was chosen president or governor, and remained in office till 1658. He lived to the age of eighty-four, but the exact date of his death is uncertain.

Williams was the author of a Key into the Language of the Indians of America (written at sea on his first voyage to England; London, 1643, reprinted in vol. i. of Collections of Rhode Island Historical Society, 1827); Mr Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, 1644; The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience, 1644; Queries of Highest Consideration, 1644; The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, 1652; The Hireling Ministry None of Christ’s, 1652; Experiments of Spiritual Life and Health, 1652; and George Fox Digged ou,t of his Burrows, 1676. A complete collection of all his letters that have been recovered forms vol. vi. of the Publications of the Narragansett Club. See Lives by Knowles (1833), Gammell (1846), and Elton (1852); Spark’s Library of American Biography; Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary of New England Settlers; Biographical Cyclopedia of Representative Men of Rhode Island, 1883; Guild’s Account of the Writings of Roger Williams, 1862; and Dexter’s As to Roger Williams and his Banishment from Massachusetts Bay, 1876.