their fellow-creatures out of the world, perhaps without time for
repentance; but physical sympathy with physical suffering had
little place in their minds. In the next century a feeling against
bodily mutilation gradually comes in; but as yet the mildest and
most thoughtful men, Anselm himself, make no protest against it
when it is believed to be really deserved. There is no sign of any
general complaint on this score. The English Chronicler applauds
the strict police of which mutilation formed a part, and in one
case he deliberately holds it to be the fitting punishment of the
offence. In fact, when penal settlements were unknown and legal
prisons were few and loathsome, there was something to be said for
a punishment which disabled the criminal from repeating his
offence. In William's jurisprudence mutilation became the ordinary
sentence of the murderer, the robber, the ravisher, sometimes also
of English revolters against William's power. We must in short
balance his mercy against the mercy of Kirk and Jeffreys.

The ground on which the English Chronicler does raise his wail on
behalf of his countrymen is the special jurisprudence of the
forests and the extortions of money with which he charges the
Conqueror. In both these points the royal hand became far heavier
under the Norman rule. In both William's character grew darker as
he grew older. He is charged with unlawful exactions of money, in
his character alike of sovereign and of landlord. We read of his
sharp practice in dealing with the profits of the royal demesnes.
He would turn out the tenant to whom he had just let the land, if
another offered a higher rent. But with regard to taxation, we
must remember that William's exactions, however heavy at the time,
were a step in the direction of regular government. In those days
all taxation was disliked. Direct taking of the subject's money by