Part 14

But even the nomadic tribes of central Europe found the miseries and inconveniences of a wandering and predatory life. The Saxons, Goths, and Scythians experienced the comforts and enjoyments of a settled and stationary life. They even grew weary of conquest, and knew the hazard of warlike achievements. They therefore wished to settle down upon some fixed and definite territory. They determined to appropriate a place which they could call their home, and to inhabit a country which they could call their own. They saw the precarious subsistence which awaited those who depended on the spontaneous produce of the earth, and the greater riches which would accrue from a cultivation of the soil. They therefore resolved on a stationary life. But this new life must have order and laws. There must be a Head to whom they should look up, a law or rule which they should obey. The warrior or chief under whose guidance the tribe had conquered and become powerful, was chosen Head of the community, and Lord paramount of the soil. The lesser warriors or captains were placed next in degree and power. The people at large were in a state of vassalage and dependence upon the Lord paramount and his Esquires and Deputies. The Lord paramount built and fortified a castle on some eligible spot in the domain. This castle was used for the residence of the Lord and his family in time of peace, and for the hospitable reception of his retainers and dependents. But in time of war the castle was the refuge and resort of all the inhabitants of the domain. There they retired before the superior number or power of the enemy, and were generally safe. Thence arose the rights and duties of chief and people. The chief owed to the people protection and security from foreign enemies, as well as arbitration and counsel. The people on the other hand owed the Lord suit and service in time of war to repel the common enemy, and allegiance at all times. For these purposes in time of peace the vassals or people farmed and cultivated the domain for their own benefit, paying to the Lord rent, suit, and service. The Lord reserved for his own use a large tract in the vicinity of his castle. Should any dispute arise between the tenants or vassals respecting the ownership or cultivation of their respective tracts of the domain, or otherwise, the Lord was arbiter or judge. Afterwards and in process of time the Lord called his chief dependents or vassals to assist him in the arbitrament of his subjects' disputes. These tribunals were subsequently called the Baron's Court, or Court of the Manor, and were the only tribunals of justice in the earlier period of the feudal society. The Lord presided, and was assisted by his principal tenants or vassals. The Baron or Manorial Court was of the utmost importance in those rude times, for there were recorded all the transactions relating to the land within the manor; and there assembled all the tenants who had rent, suit, or service to pay or render, or who had complaint to make of disturbance, injury, or grievance, from a fellow tenant, or vassal. The decision of this court was final, the disobedience of which was punished by heavy fines, forfeitures, and disqualifications.

We thus see that the feudal society arose not more from choice than from the necessity and circumstances of the time. At this unsettled and warlike period, protection was required for the tribe or clan from the enmity or rapacity of neighbouring hordes. The tribe therefore united under one common chief to defend their own territory and people, and when necessary, to make war on a neighbouring or distant community. Rule and internal government were also necessary for the comfort and security of the tribe itself. These were therefore the circumstances which induced, or rather compelled the various tribes or hordes of the barbarian population of mediaeval Europe to enter the feudal society. And in this manner sprung up, soon after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, that vast net-work of feudal society, which eventually extended itself from Cape Trafalgar to the Euxine Sea, and from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Pillars of Hercules.

It was among the vast forests and plains of Russia, Hungary, Germany, and France, and by a people just emerging from barbarism, that the feudal system arose, and that about the fifth century of the Christian era; thence it was carried by the Continental invaders into their newly conquered territories. But in no country was the system more predominant, than in Gaul, or France, whence it was carried by their Duke of Normandy, or our William the Conqueror, after the battle of Hastings in the eleventh century into Britain, and was more rigorously established here for the protection of the conquerors and the subjection of the native races than it had ever been in Normandy itself. The Conqueror parcelled out all the richest parts of the territory among seven hundred of his Captains or warlike retainers, and erected each into a Barony. The Barons rented a portion of their domains to their Knights, which were denominated knights' fiefs, and were 60,215 in number;--these again sub-let part of their fiefs to their Esquires. The cultivation of the soil and all kind of manual labor were carried on by the vassals, or villeins, who formed the mass of the people. Each class owed rent, suit, and service to their superiors, and the whole were subject to the Lord paramount, or Sovereign, to whom the right to the soil of all the land in his kingdom was reserved, and the herbage or surface alone was granted to the Barons and their tenants, on condition of yielding suit and service to the King, failing which the land reverted to its original owner--the Lord paramount. The wily Conqueror thus founded a superstructure of government which proved impregnable to all assaults from the vanquished races, and reared a cordon of despotism strong and compact from within, and unassailable from without.

The object of this superstructure being military strength, each Norman Baron erected a stately castle fortified by walls, towers, and, if available, a moat, on the strongest site or position within his manor. Here the Baron dwelt, with his domestics, and a chosen body of his warlike vassals, who always bore arms, and watched and were prepared by day and by night at any alarm to sally forth to any summons of conquest or defence. In times of peace the chief occupation of the Baron and his principal retainers was the chase, and the game on the manor was preserved with the greatest care, and its destruction guarded against by the forest laws, which were the most cruel of any enactments on record, inasmuch as the punishment for killing a deer or even a hare was the taking out the eyes of the delinquent; while at the same time the punishment of homicide, or murder, was only a small pecuniary fine, and when perpetrated by the Baron or any of his retainers on an inferior vassal was seldom enforced. In short, under this system there was then no appeal or redress by an inferior for any crime or wrong perpetrated by his superior in rank; and the vassals, or people at large, were in a state of the greatest subjection and most abject slavery, inasmuch as the will and pleasure of the superior liege formed the only law of the land.

It is certain that the feudal system after the Norman model never existed among the Saxons in this island, or on the continent of Europe, previously to the Norman Conquest. Their Kings were mostly elected to the throne; and the land was possessed principally by their military chieftains, called Thanes. This order was at first confined to military supremacy; but in process of time successful merchants and others who had acquired wealth were admitted into the rank. The Thanes resided in large irregular halls upon their estates, in a coarse but very hospitable manner: their halls were said to be generally filled with their neighbours and tenants, who spent their time in feasting and riot. The great distinction between the Anglo-Saxon nobility and the Norman, according to William of Malmesbury, was, that the latter built magnificent and stately castles; whereas the former dwelt in large but mean houses, and consumed their immense fortunes in riot and hospitality. Nevertheless this social communion, combined with the hearty generosity and manners of the Saxon nobility, made them extremely popular among their tenants and vassals, between whom was established a spontaneous and steady attachment. The next in degree were called Ceorles, and were freemen. These conducted most of the occupations on the land and in trade;--they formed the most numerous class of the Anglo-Saxon population, and enjoyed all the rights of freemen, as these were understood in those times;--they had a voice in the national councils, served on juries in the County and other Courts, and their rights and liberties were protected, and generally enforced by fines against each other, and even against their superiors. The Anglo-Saxons rejoiced in their system of trial by jury, and boasted it as their peculiar institution. It was also a law among them that none should be tried except by his equals in the government. These institutions, with the historical open-heartedness of the Thanes and landed proprietors, secured to the Ceorles or freemen as much of real liberty and justice as those rude times might admit.

But the Saxon government is defaced by the odious vice of slavery. The slaves were those whom they had conquered in battle; and the Anglo-Saxons introduced them into this island. They were household slaves, performing menial duties, and predial or rustic slaves who labored on the soil. The proprietors sold their slaves with their estates, and they were regarded as chattels: yet the master had not unlimited power over his slave, for it was ordained that if he beat out his slave's eye or teeth, he gained his liberty; and if he killed him, he paid a fine to the King. Yet, notwithstanding this protection, and although the slaves were confined to races vanquished in battle, yet the practice formed a dark stain on the Saxon institutions.

The government of the Ancient Britons, or Cymri, corresponded much with the Anglo-Saxon, except that their King was hereditary, and that they were always free from the odious institution of slavery. Sovereign power was inherited among the Cymri, according to the present rules of descent in England, from whom it was probably derived. The chief people were the Princes or large land-proprietors, who dwelt in magnificent style, and exercised unbounded hospitality in their halls upon their estates. Here they received their retainers and tenants, to whom they dispensed the greatest liberality: here also dwelt the Bards, Priests, and Literati of the period--the Taliesins, Aneurins, and Dafydd ap Gwilyms--in the enjoyment of the most profuse favors and protection from their munificent patrons. Hence also the spontaneous and faithful attachment of the whole to their Princes,--as exemplified in the poems of the Bards, and the warlike records of the Cymric nation. Besides the Princes, were a large number of independent landowners or Esquires distributed over the whole island. The great mass of the people, as in every community, labored on the land, or were employed in domestic and mercantile occupations. Slavery or even abject servitude was unknown among them: every class enjoyed the rights and exercised the privileges of freemen, and seldom failed in obtaining redress for any crime or wrong. In their freedom from slavery, and their full enjoyment of civil rights and immunities, the Cymri of ancient times formed a striking contrast with all the European nations.

The effects of the Norman Conquest varied altogether as it respected the Anglo-Saxons and the Cymri. The former were entirely subjected to the feudal system, and their lands forfeited and parcelled out among the Norman chiefs. The forest laws and other odious parts of the feudal system were executed in all their rigor against the vanquished Saxon: hence the sanguinary feuds and mortal enmity which for several centuries existed between the Saxon and Norman race. The former, repelled by the feudal system from open war, retaliated by private and secret murders and injuries upon their Norman oppressors: no Saxon impeaching, the murder or crime was never discovered, and the perpetrator unpunished. At length the Normans, being decimated by this practice of stealthy revenge, passed a law that every Saxon in the parish should answer for every Norman found killed within its limits. This law, which would have been rigorously executed, at last suppressed the Saxon retaliation; nevertheless the hostility between the two races continued for ages, and was only inflamed by the contempt and oppression of the Norman on all occasions evinced. The Cymri on the other hand remained free in their mountain fastnesses and plains west of the Severn and Dee, and unaffected by the Norman invasion and conquest. They even rejoiced at the change, inasmuch as it supplanted a foreign and adverse race--the Saxon--by a kindred and more congenial people; for the Normans were Celts descended from the same Cimbric origin, and had many qualities of mind and heart in common with the Ancient Britons: whereas the characteristics of the Saxons, and of the Teutonic race in general, were entirely opposite. The Normans celebrated the anniversary feasts and cherished the memory of the Cymric King Arthur of the Round Table, whose chivalric fame they regarded as much their own as the Cymri, for he ruled the Celts of Gaul as well as of Britain. The Cymri therefore looked on with placidity and satisfaction at the mutual enmity and reprisals of Normans and Saxons, for they remained unconquered and unmolested in their upland homes. We find them occasionally under their Princes making inroads into England, and conquering and retaining much border territory. The Norman Kings therefore established on the Welsh borders the Lords-marchers, or Lords authorised to conquer and hold by the sword land in Wales; and erected a chain of castles and fortresses from Chester through Shrewsbury and Gloucester to Pembroke, for the defence of the frontier, and the repression of sorties from Wales. Hence the Grosvenors, De Greys, Cliffords, and Mortimers of border chivalry. Hence also the border wars between them and Gruffydd ap Conan, Owain Gwynedd, Llewelyn, and other Princes of Wales, wherein great courage and chivalry were displayed on both sides, and seldom to the advantage of the Norman. At last, after ages of bloodshed and war, and repeated failures, the subjection of the Principality was accomplished, A.D. 1283, by Edward the First, who, to extinguish the last embers of patriotic fire, massacred upwards of one hundred Welsh Bards, in addition to many Cymric Princes. But the Cymri were still discontented and given to insurrection, until a monarch of their own Tudor blood was placed on the British throne in the person of Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1485. Henceforward they became more reconciled to the larger and dominant race, and at length subsided into peaceful submission and attachment to the British throne and laws.

But to return to the feudal system strictly so called, we find the Lords and Barons were all-powerful within their dominions, and had the power of giving or taking away the life, liberty, and property of their retainers and vassals. They often made war upon each other, the consequences of which were frequently awful in the streams of blood which flowed, and the murder, rapine, and spoliation which ensued. Evidences of these internal wars are seen in the ruined castles and dismantled towers which cover our own country and the continent of Europe. The Barons would frequently league together, and make war upon the King or Sovereign, in which they often triumphed. A remarkable instance of this is found in English History, when the Barons joined in opposing King John, and wrested from him Magna Charta at Runnymede. The De Veres, Bohuns, Mowbrays, Nevilles, Howards, Percys, and Somersets often overshadowed their sovereign lieges in England; while the powerful families of Douglas and Scott for ages held the Kings of Scotland in awe. The Kings and Sovereigns were more in fear and had greater apprehensions of the feudal Barons, than from the mass of their subjects, and were therefore often completely obsequious to their wills. But ever and anon would arise an Edward or a James, who, defying the enmity of the feudal chiefs, diminished their powers and restrained their excesses. Yet this was never done, or even attempted, without the greatest opposition and danger, and never but by a brave and formidable Prince.

Each of the great Barons kept a Court, and indulged in a style of pageantry corresponding in an inferior degree to that of Royalty, of which he occasionally affected independence. When the great Earl Warrenne was questioned respecting the right to his vast land possessions, he drew his sword, saying that was his title, and that William did not himself conquer England, but that his ancestor with the rest of the Barons were joint adventurers in the enterprise. As the Barons were so powerful, the Sovereign never made war or undertook any other great enterprise without first convoking and consulting them, as their co-operation was necessary to his success. In fact, such was their position in the realm, that no change in the laws or government, nor any great act of administration, could be accomplished without their advice and consent. Hence they formed with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the sole and supreme legislative council of the Sovereign. Independently of the necessity for their advice and co-operation in national enterprises, the Sovereign was desirous of convoking the Barons to his councils at stated periods, as a badge of fealty, and to remind them of their allegiance to Royalty; which in the autocratic retirement of their castles, and the solitude of their manors, they were prone to forget. Whensoever any of the Barons rebelled against the royal authority, the Sovereign assembled the other Barons to assist him in suppressing the mutiny. If on the other hand any Baron should be unable to repel the encroachments of a neighbor, he appealed to the Sovereign as the supreme liege for help to resist and punish the aggression, which with the aid of other chieftains was generally granted. The Sovereign therefore stood in the same relation to the Barons of the whole realm, as they individually to their vassals, the feudal theory being, that all land was held ultimately from the Sovereign in return for military and other services, failing which it reverted to the Crown.

The Barons, as may be supposed, exercised unlimited power within their domains, as the Sovereign never interposed in questions between the Lord and his vassals, so long as the chief rendered the services required by the Crown. Hence the power of each Baron was absolute within his dominions; and from his acts there was no appeal, much less redress. He even affected Royalty by obliging his principal vassals to give attendance upon him, in like manner as he and the other Barons paid court to the King, and by establishing Courts and Judges of his own to administer justice to his vassals. In short, every Barony was a miniature Kingdom, with an army of retainers, a train of officials, and other insignia of State grandeur corresponding with the wealth and power of the chief. To maintain this condition, the Baron was under the necessity of raising a large revenue from his Barony; and as a great display of power was essential for the chief, his exactions from the vassals and all within his power were consequently heavy. This revenue was obtained from heriots, fines, and tolls; which being arbitrary, the amount depended on the want which called it forth, or on the conscience of the chief. A heriot of the best horse, or certain head of cattle, or a fine of so many marks, were payable to the Baron on the marriage or death of his vassal, and on each fresh succession to the fief. These exactions were not confined to the immediate vassals and villains, but extended to the whole population within the limits of the Barony. The towns were in this era small, consisting principally of villages, which, as they were situate within some Barony, were equally subjected to fiscal burdens. These, in addition to heavy fines demanded for any building, liberty, or encroachment on the manor, consisted of tolls and duties imposed on the exportation or importation of goods, and on the sale of horses, cattle, or stock which, to increase the revenue, were prohibited being sold outside the vills, or except in the fairs and markets there licensed to be held, whereupon the tolls attached. By this means the Baron raised a considerable revenue to support his power and state. But as the Baron was more hostile to the trading community or the population of towns, than to his own military vassals and tenants on the soil, as being less serviceable to his warlike power, and more antagonistic to, and discontented with his seignioral privileges,--he imposed on the former heavier fiscal burdens, and spared no opportunity of oppressing them with the most odious extortions. The military and mercantile spirits have always been antagonistic and hostile, and the germs of that great conflict which has since existed, and in recent times been so grandly developed between the two elements, are plainly discernible in this era--the cradle of its history.

But as the boroughs increased, the towns multiplied, and commerce extended, an antagonistic principle or element to the powers and privileges of the feudal nobility grew up. The reigning power having so much cause for dread of the Barons, was desirous of conciliating the burgher nobility, or the population of towns, and from time to time made large concessions or grants in their favor. This was done as much to foster a rival power or influence to the feudal nobility, as to win over the towns to the interest of the King. These grants consisted in charters of incorporation, that the towns might be freed from the rule of the landed nobility, and might accomplish their own government; and grants of fairs, and markets, and tolls, as well as the rights of representation in parliament. Thus in times past the Kings of Britain were often in friendlier alliance with the towns and burgher nobility, than with the feudal Barons and landed aristocracy. By this means the power and privileges of the feudal nobility, which up to the fifteenth century were nearly absolute and uncontrollable, were much reduced, and are in the present reign nearly taken away. This result has been owing almost entirely to the growing importance, influence, and intelligence of the burgher or trading population. It is thus that in political society as in nature and the material world, results are accomplished by the antagonistic operation and conflict of rival or opposing principles, elements, or influences.