THE "LITTLE ENGLANDERS " OF 1044 AND AFTER

in that process geography was a potent factor. The newcomers became conscious, thanks to the dividing sea, of an entity called England, and those lords who owed homage only for lands in England evolved the ingenious but specious argument that their liege lord could not demand them to serve outside England. In the eleventh century there was already a " Little-Englandism." The wars of the first two Henries were feudal forays which interested only the king and the vassals directly concerned; " England " was not interested. The vassals who won Tenchebrai (1106) for Henry I. and thereby secured Normandy for him could not be described as an English army; on the other hand, not so very many years later the little band that Richard Lionheart took to Palestine was conscious, among Frenchmen and Germans, of being English. If an English patriotism such as we find in the fourteenth century had not yet arisen, an island patriotism was developing. Its development meant inevitably the fusion of the races. If on the great estates there were still Norman barons and Saxon serfs, the dividing line was perpetually being crossed as the King's sendee became English, the Church became English, and the towns became English, with English crafts and English trade. In the opinion of some historians the quarrel of the barons with John (1215) is more than a mere assertion of feudal rights against a feudal lord. The explosion of wrath against the King's appeal to France for aid is unmistakable. The subsequent quarrel between Henry III. and his barons under Simon de Montfort (1257) at times appears almost a struggle between a native aristocracy supported by the people against the foreign mercenaries of the King. It is significant that the Port of London was the most violent champion of Montfort and that London citizens went forth with disastrous results to themselves to the battle of Lewes. The King beat Montfort eventually, but the victory none the less remained with the barons and the Commons of England.

The issues are confused, as always. The nation wants strong and just government. An oppressive king rouses against himself the baronage, the Church, and the commons. A strong king controls the barons, may incur the dislike of the commons if he interferes with or taxes trading privileges too highly, and certainly like Henry II. raises against himself the wrath of the Church. An able tyrant like John can play with the semblance of a parliament; the trading classes will support a baronage, capable of extremes of oppression if it gets the chance, against competent but exacting royal rule. The serfs remain still inarticulate.