1.

the greatest conquerors [D]. The great change SECT. which the settlement of the barbarous nations occasioned in the state of Europe, may, therefore, be considered as a more decisive proof than even the testimony of contemporary historians, of the destructive violence with which these invaders carried on their conquests, and of the havock which they had made from one extremity of this quarter of the globe to the other [E].

state of dis

vernment

lished must

IN the obscurity of the chaos occasioned by this From this general wreck of nations, we must search for the order the seeds of order, and endeavour to discover the first laws of gorudiments of the policy and laws now established now estab in Europe. To this source the historians of its be traced. different kingdoms have attempted, though with less attention and industry than the importance of the inquiry merits, to trace back the institutions and customs peculiar to their countrymen. It is not my province to give a minute detail of the progress of government and manners in each particular nation, whose transactions are the object of the following history. But in order to exhibit a just view of the state of Europe at the opening of the sixteenth century, it is necessary to look back, and to contemplate the condition of the northern nations upon their first settlement in those countries which they occupied. It is necessary to mark the great steps by which they advanced from barbarism to refinement, and to point out those general principles and events which, by their uniform as

1.

SECT. well as extensive operation, conducted all of them to that degree of improvement in policy and in manners which they had attained at the period when Charles V. began his reign.

The princi

ples on

WHEN nations subject to despotic government

which the make conquests, these serve only to extend the dominion and the power of their master.

northern

nations

But armade their mies composed of freemen conquer for themselves, in Europe. not for their leaders. The people who overturned

settlements

the Roman Empire, and settled in its various provinces, were of the latter class. Not only the different nations that issued from the north of Europe, which has always been considered as the seat of liberty, but the Huns and Alans who inhabited part of those countries, which have been marked out as the peculiar region of servitude*, enjoyed freedom and independence in such a high degree as seems to be scarcely compatible with a state of social union, or with the subordination necessary to maintain it. They followed the chieftain who led them forth in quest of new settlements, not by constraint, but from choice; not as soldiers whom he could order to march, but as volunteers who offered to accompany him [F]. They considered their conquests as a common property, in which all had a title to share, as all had contributed to acquire them [G]. In what manner, or by what principles, they divided among them the lands which they seized, we cannot now determine with any

1.

certainty. There is no nation in Europe whose re- SECT cords reach back to this remote period; and there is little information to be got from the uninstructive and meagre chronicles, compiled by writers ignorant of the true end, and unacquainted with the proper objects, of history.

government

established

them.

THIS new division of property, however, together The feudal with the maxims and manners to which it gave gradually rise, gradually introduced a species of government among formerly unknown. This singular institution is now distinguished by the name of the Feudal System: and though the barbarous nations which framed it, settled in their new territories at different times, came from different countries, spoke various languages, and were under the command of separate leaders, the feudal policy and laws were established, with little variation, in every kingdom of Europe. This amazing uniformity had induced some authors to believe that all these nations, notwithstanding so many apparent circumstances of distinction, were originally the same people. But it may be ascribed, with greater probability, to the similar state of society and of manners to which they were accustomed in their native countries, and to the similar situation in which they found themselves on taking possession of their new domains.

As the conquerors of Europe had their acquisitions to maintain, not only against such of the

*Procop. de bello Vandal. ap. Script. Byz. edit. Ven. vol. i. P. 345.

SECT. ancient inhabitants as they had spared, but against the more formidable inroads of new invaders, selfNational defence was their chief care, and seems to have great object been the chief object of their first institutions and

defence the

of feudal

policy.

policy. Instead of those loose associations, which, though they scarcely diminished their personal independence, had been sufficient for their security while they remained in their original countries, they saw the necessity of uniting in more close confederacy, and of relinquishing some of their private rights in order to attain public safety. Every freeman, upon receiving a portion of the lands which were divided, bound himself to appear in arms against the enemies of the community. This military service was the condition upon which he received and held his lands; and as they were exempted from every other burden, that tenure, among a warlike people, was deemed both easy and honourable. The king or general, who led them to conquest, continuing still to be the head of the colony, had, of course, the largest portion allotted to him. Having thus acquired the means of rewarding past services, as well as of gaining new adherents, he parcelled out his lands with this view, binding those on whom they were bestowed, to resort to his standard with a number of men in proportion to the extent of the territory which they received, and to bear arms in' his defence. His chief officers imitated the example of the sovereign, and, in distributing portions of their lands among their dependents, annexed the same con

dition to the grant. Thus a feudal kingdom re- SECT.. sembled a military establishment, rather than a civil institution. The victorious army, cantoned out in the country which it had seized, continued ranged under its proper officers, and subordinate to military command. The names of a soldier and of a freeman were synonymous*. Every proprietor of land, girt with a sword, was ready to march at the summons of his superior, and to take the field against the common enemy. "

government

its provi

terior order

in society.

BUT though the feudal policy seems to be so The Feudal admirably calculated for defence against the as-defective in saults of any foreign power, its provisions for the sions for ininterior order and tranquillity of society were extremely defective. The principles of disorder and corruption are discernible in that constitution under its best and most perfect form. They soon unfolded themselves, and, spreading with rapidity through every part of the system, produced the most fatal effects. The bond of political union was extremely feeble; the sources of anarchy were innumerable. The monarchical and aristocratical parts of the constitution, having no intermediate power to balance them, were perpetually at variance, and justling with each other. The powerful vassals of the crown soon extorted a confirmation for life of those grants of land, which being at first purely gratuitous, had been bestowed only during pleasure. Not satisfied with this, they prevailed to have them converted into hereditary pos