William Rufus made grants, and revoked them at pleasure, to supply his extravagance and ridiculous humour. This was base and unmanly. Henry's resumptions neither impeached his generosity nor his justice. The grants he reclaimed were such as sound policy and the exigencies of the State demanded, being made by a weak Prince in embarrassed situations; as they were all of no earlier date than the Reign of King Stephen, and had not been transmitted down through several generations. Foreseeing, however, that this step would raise much discontent in those who were to be affected by it, who were numerous and powerful, Henry was cautious not to act without a legal sanction, and the approbation of his Council. He therefore summoned a Parliament, wherein almost all his Nobles were present; and having properly laid before them the wants of the Crown, the losses it had suffered, the illegality of the grants, and the urgent necessity of a speedy resumption; obtained their concurrence to it, and proceeded to put it into immediate execution. The vigour of his government was such, that he met with less opposition than he had reason to expect; very near all that had been granted to Laymen, or usurped by them, from the Royal Demesne, was surrendered to him without bloodshed, after a little delay, and some ineffectual marks of reluctance in a few of the greatest Barons[122]. The cause assigned for these resumptions was not a defect in the title of the grantor, nor any unworthiness in the grantee, but the apparent and indispensable necessity of recovering the just and inseparable Rights of the Crown. No distinction was made between the grants of Stephen and Matilda; for that would have carried an appearance of Henry's acting from motives, not of Royal economy and public expediency, but of party revenge; and by this equal and impartial proceeding, he left the adherents of Stephen no reason to complain. In the course of this business, however, Henry was once very near losing his life; for Roger de Mortimer would not submit, which obliged Henry, incensed by his obstinacy, to lead an army against him, with which he assaulted, among others, the castle of Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, which was defended by Mortimer himself. Henry commanded in person, and exposed himself to so much danger, that he would have been infallibly slain, if a faithful vassal (Hubert de St. Clare[123]) who stood by his side, had not preferred the King's life to his own; for, seeing an arrow aimed at Henry by one of Mortimer's archers, he stepped before him, and received it in his own breast. The wound proved mortal, and he expired in Henry's arms; recommending his daughter, an only child, and an infant, to the care of that Prince[124]. It is hard to say which deserves the most admiration (continues my Noble Author[125]) a subject who died to save his King, or a King whose personal virtues could render his safety so dear to a subject whom he had not obliged by any extraordinary favours[126].