We must not however imagine or suppose that this revolution bore any resemblance to that which took place in this country above six hundred years afterwards, and which has been justly the fond and proud boast of our countrymen ever since. They were scarcely in any thing alike, except in the names of their respective authors. But William of Normandy must not be compared with William of Nassau; for they were two men of very different and opposite characters: the former came over to subdue and enslave the nation, the latter came as the champion and guardian of its rights and its freedom—one came to rob and destroy, the other to succour and to save—one merited the detestation and execration, the other the esteem, the gratitude, and the benediction of mankind. Of all the English grandees, who were ruined by the conquest, none were more completely undone than the three great proprietors and lords of Lynn. One of them as has been already observed, was king _Harold_: of his downfall we need say no more. The other two were archbishop _Stigand_, and his brother, bishop _Ailmar_. The former seems to have been the elder brother and head of the family, and was probably of noble birth, and of Danish extraction, as the bulk of his vast possessions lay in East Anglia. Carte says, that it appears from the Domesday book, that he had the best estate of any man in England, except Harold and Edwin: there can be little doubt therefore of his being the head of one of the first families in the kingdom. He was lord of Rising, and of the Hundreds of Freebridge and Smithdon, and also, of divers other extensive districts. He is represented as a man of no great learning, but of eminent natural parts, improved by reflection, exercise, and experience, and directed by a clear head and solid judgment. He had the reputation of being endowed with uncommon capacity for business; and we also hear that he was a person of very great weight and power in the country, of which no doubt can be entertained when his immense wealth is considered, and the vast influence, arising from both his temporal and spiritual dignities. That such a man should be marked out as one of the victims of the Norman revolution, was naturally to be expected: his being an Englishman, and so very opulent and powerful, were sufficient temptations to sacrifice him. But he seems to have conducted himself so warily at that critical juncture, that the Conqueror for sometime appeared at a loss how to proceed against him. At last some frivolous or pretended ecclesiastical misdemeanor was found out, for which he was deprived of his spiritual dignity, under the sanction of the papal authority, by two popish legates, at a council held at Winchester in 1070. This appeared a hard and severe measure: but William, as a politic prince, laid the whole blame or responsibility of it on the then Pontiff, Alexander II. Yet he immediately seized on Stigand’s vast estates in East Anglia and