that nothing was then said as to the
succession to the throne. To Godwin's return from outlawry the Norman
chroniclers seem to refer the date of this pretended oath, by the
assertion that the hostages were given in pledge of it. This is the most
monstrous supposition of all; for Godwin's return is followed by the
banishment of the Norman favourites--by the utter downfall of the Norman
party in England--by the decree of the Witan, that all the troubles in
England had come from the Normans--by the triumphant ascendancy of
Godwin's House. And is it credible for a moment, that the great English
Earl could then have agreed to a pledge to transfer the kingdom to the
very party he had expelled, and expose himself and his party to the
vengeance of a foe he had thoroughly crushed for the time, and whom,
without any motive or object, he himself agreed to restore to power or
his own probable perdition? When examined, this assertion falls to the
ground from other causes. It is not among the arguments that William
uses in his embassies to Harold; it rests mainly upon the authority of
William of Poitiers, who, though a contemporary, and a good authority on
some points purely Norman, is grossly ignorant as to the most accredited
and acknowledged facts, in all that relate to the English. Even with
regard to the hostages, he makes the most extraordinary blunders. He
says they were sent by Edward, with the consent of his nobles,
accompanied by Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury. Now Robert, Archbishop
of Canterbury, had fled from England as fast as he could fly on the
return of Godwin; and arrived in Normandy, half drowned, before the
hostages were sent, or even before the Witan which reconciled Edward and
Godwin had assembled. He says that William restored to Harold "his young
brother;" whereas it was Haco, the nephew, who was restored; we know, by
Norman as well as Saxon Chroniclers, that Wolnoth, the brother, was not
released till after the Conqueror's death, (he was re-imprisoned by
Rufus;) and his partiality may be judged by the assertions, first, that
"William gave nothing to a Norman that was unjustly taken from an
Englishman;" and secondly, that Odo, whose horrible oppressions revolted
even William himself, "never had an equal for justice, and that all the
English obeyed him willingly."

We may, therefore, dismiss this assertion as utterly groundless, on its
own merits, without directly citing against it the Saxon authorit