. 12, 13).

But there is evidence of a much stronger character, which of itself
refutes the views of these writers, and shows that the Norman system,
at least during the reign of William I., was a continuation of that
existing previous to his succession to the throne; and that the meeting
at Salisbury, so graphically portrayed, did not effect that radical
change in the position of English landholders which has been stated.
I refer to the works of EADMERUS; he was a monk of Canterbury who
was appointed Bishop of St. Andrews, and declined or resigned
the appointment because the King of Scotland refused to allow his
consecration by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His history includes the
reigns of William I., William II., and Henry I., from 1066 to 1122, and
he gives, at page 173, the laws of Edward the Confessor, which William
I. gave to England; they number seventy-one, including the LII. law
quoted by Sir Martin Wright. The introduction to these laws is in Latin
and Norman-French, and is as follows:

"These are the laws and customs which King William granted to the whole
people of England after he had conquered the land, and they are those
which KING EDWARD HIS PREDECESSOR observed before him."

[Footnote: The laws of William are given in a work entitled
"Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historia Novorum," etc. It
includes the reigns of William I. and II., and Henry I.,
from 1066 to 1122, and is edited by John Selden. Page 173
has the following:

"Hae sunt Leges et Consuetudines quas Willielmus Rex
concessit universo Populo Angliae post subactam terram.
Eaedum sunt quas Edwardus Rex cognatus ejus obscruauit ante
eum.

"Ces sont les leis et les Custums que le Rui people de
Engleterre apres le Conquest de le Terre. Ice les meismes
que le Rui Edward sun Cosin tuit devant lui.

"LII.

"De fide et obsequio erga Regnum.

"Statuimus etiam ut omnes liiben homines foedere et
sacramento affirment quod intra et extra universum regnum
Anglias (quod olim vocabatur regnum Britanniae) Willielmo
suo domino fideles esse volunt, terras et honores illins
fidelitate ubique servare cum eo et contra inimicos et
alienigonas defendere."]

This simple statement gets rid of the theory of Sir Martin Wright, of
Sir William Blackstone, of Mr. Hallam, and of Mr. FREEMAN, that William
introduced a new system, and that he did so either as a new