1136.
The first considerable enemy that appeared against him was David King of Scots, who having taken the oath of fealty to Maud and her issue, being further engaged by the ties of blood, and stirred up through the persuasions of several English nobles, began to take up arms in her cause; and invading the northern parts, took Carlisle and Newcastle; but upon the King's speedy approach with his forces, a peace was presently made, and the towns restored. However, the Scottish prince would, by no means, renounce his fidelity to the Empress, by paying homage to Stephen; so that an expedient was found to have it performed by his eldest son: in consideration of which the King gave, or rather restored, to him the Earldom of Huntingdon.
Upon his return to London from this expedition, he happened to fall sick of a lethargy, and it was confidently given out that he was dead. This report was, with great industry and artifice, dispersed by his enemies, which quickly discovered the ill inclination of several lords, who, although they never believed the thing, yet made use of it for an occasion or pretext to fortify their castles, which they refused to surrender to the King himself; but Stephen was resolved, as he said, to convince them that he was alive and well; for coming against them before he was expected, he recovered Exeter, Norwich,[27] and other fortified places, although not without much difficulty.
[Footnote 27: Hugh Bigod had seized Norwich Castle. [D.S.]
It is obvious enough to wonder how a prince of so much valour, and other excellent endowments, elected by the Church and State, after a compliance with all conditions they could impose on him, and in an age when so little regard was had to the lineal descent, lastly confirmed by the Pope himself, should be soon deserted and opposed by those very persons who had been the most instrumental to promote him. But, beside his defective title, and the undistinguished liberty of building castles, there were three circumstances which very much contributed to those perpetual revolts of the nobles against him: first, that upon his coming to the crown he was very liberal in distributing lands and honours to several young gentlemen of noble birth, who came to make their court, whereby he hoped to get the reputation of a generous prince, and to strengthen his party against the Empress: but, by this encouragement, the number of pretenders quickly grew too fast upon him; and when he had granted all he was able, he was forced to dismiss the rest with promises and excuses, who, either out of envy or discontent, or else to mend their fortunes, never failed to become his enemies upon the first occasion that offered. Secondly, when he had reduced several castles and towns which had given the first example of disaffection from him, he hardly inflicted the least punishment on the authors; which unseasonable mercy, that in another prince and another age would have been called greatness of spirit, passed in him for pusillanimity and fear, and is reckoned, by the writers of those times to have been the cause of many succeeding revolts. The third circumstance was of a different kind: for, observing how little good effect he had found by his liberality and indulgence, he would needs try the other extreme, which was not his talent. He began to infringe the articles of his charter; to recall or disown the promises he had made; and to repulse petitioners with rough treatment, which was the more unacceptable by being new and unexpected.