which the spirit displayed itself. This, as we shall hereafter see, is likewise connected with the great religious rebellion of the sixteenth century; the success of which mainly depended on the weakness of the protective principle that opposed it. But, reserving this for future consideration, I will now endeavour to trace a few of the circumstances which gave the aristocracy more power in France than in England, and thus accustomed the French to a closer and more constant obedience, and infused into them a more reverential spirit than that which was usual in our country.

Soon after the middle of the eleventh century, and therefore while the aristocracy was in the process of formation, England was conquered by the Duke of Normandy, who naturally introduced the polity existing in his own country.12 But, in his hands, it underwent a modification suitable to the new circumstances in which he was placed. He, being in a foreign country, the general of a successful army composed partly of mercenaries, 13 was able to dispense with some of those feudal usages which were customary in France. The great Norman lords, thrown as strangers into the midst of a hostile population, were glad to accept estates from the crown on almost any terms that would guarantee their own security. Of this, William naturally availed himself. For, by granting baronies on conditions favourable to the crown, he prevented the barons1 from possessing that power which they exercised in France, and which, but for this, they would have exercised in England. The result was, that the most powerful of our nobles became amenable to the law, or, at all events, to the authority of the king.15 Indeed, to such an extent was this carried, that William, shortly before his death, obliged all the landowners to render their fealty to him; thus entirely

12 Where it was particularly flourishing: "la féodalité fut organisée en Normandie plus fortement et plus systématiquement que partout ailleurs en France." Klimrath, Travaux sur l'Hist. du Droit, vol. i. p. 130. The "coutume de Normandie " was, at a much later period, only to be found in the old "grand coutumier." Klimrath, vol. ii. p. 160. On the peculiar tenacity with which the Normans clung to it, see Lettres d'Aguesseau, vol. ii. pp. 225, 226: "accoutumés à respecter leur coutume comme l'évangile."

13 Mills's Hist. of Chivalry, vol. i. p. 387; Turner's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 390, vol. iv. p. 76. Mercenary troops were also employed by his immediate successors. Grose's Military Antiq. vol. i. p. 55.

On the different meanings attached to the word 'baron,' compare Klimrath, Hist. du Droit, vol. ii. p. 40, with Meyer, Instit. Judiciaires, vol. i. p. 105. But M. Guizot says, what seems most likely, "il est probable que ce nom fut commun originairement à tous les vassaux immédiats de la couronne, liés au roi per servitium militare, par le service de chevalier." Essais, p. 265.

16

Meyer, Instit. Judic. vol. i. p. 242; Turner's Hist. of England, vol. iii. p. 220. The same policy of reducing the nobles was followed up by Henry II., who destroyed the baronial castles. Turner, vol. iv. p. 223. Compare Lingard, vol. i. pp. 315, 371.

neglecting that peculiarity of feudalism, according to which each vassal was separately dependent on his own lord.16

But in France, the course of affairs was very different. In that country, the great nobles held their lands, not so much by grant, as by prescription." A character of antiquity was thus thrown over their rights; which, when added to the weakness of the crown, enabled them to exercise on their own estates all the functions of independent sovereigns. 18 Even when they received their first great check, under Philip Augustus," they, in his reign, and indeed long after, wielded a power quite unknown in England. Thus, to give only two instances: the right of coining money, which has always been regarded as an attribute of sovereignty, was never allowed in England, even to the greatest nobles.20 But in France it was exercised by many persons independently of the crown, and was not abrogated until the sixteenth century.21 A similar remark holds good of what was called the right of private war; by virtue of which, the nobles were allowed to attack each other, and disturb the peace of the country with the prosecution of their private feuds. In England the aristocracy were never strong enough to have this admitted as a right,22 though they too often exercised it as a practice. But in France it became a part of the established law; it was incorporated into the text-books of feudalism, and it is distinctly recognized by Louis IX. and Philip the Fair,-two kings of considerable energy, who did every thing in their power to curtail the enormous authority of the nobles.23

18 "Deinde cœpit homagia hominum totius Angliæ, et juramentum fidelitatis, cujuscumque essent feodi vel tenementi." Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum, vol. ii. p. 9.

See some good remarks on this difference between the French and English nobles, in Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100. Mably (Observations, vol. i. p. 60) says: en effet, on négligea, sur la fin de la première race, de conserver les titres primordiaux de ses possessions." As to the old customary French law of prescription, see Giraud, Précis de l'Ancien Droit, pp. 79, 80.

19

Mably, Observations sur l' Hist. de France, vol. i. pp. 70, 162, 178.

On the policy of Philip Augustus in regard to the nobles, see Mably, Observations, vol. i. p. 246; Lerminier, Philos. du Droit, vol. i. p. 265; Boulainvilliers, Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement, vol. iii. pp. 147-150; Guizot, Civilisation en France, vol. iv. pp. 134, 135; Courson, Hist. des Peuples Brétons, Paris, 1846, vol. ii. p. 350. 20 "No subjects ever enjoyed the right of coining silver in England without the royal stamp and superintendence; a remarkable proof of the restraint in which the feudal aristocracy was always held in this country." Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 154.

21 Brougham's Polit. Philos. 1849, vol. i. p. 446. In addition to the evidence there given on the right of coinage, see Mably's Observations, vol. i. p. 424, vol. ii. pp. 296, 297; and Turner's Normandy, vol. ii. p. 261.

Hallam's Supplemental Notes, pp. 304, 305.

23 "Saint-Louis consacra le droit de guerre. Philippe le Bel, qui voulut l'abolir, finit par le rétablir." Montlosier, Monarchie Française, vol. i. pp. 127, 202: see also pp. 434, 435, and vol. ii. pp. 435, 436. Mably (Observations, vol. ii. p. 338) mentions "lettres-patentes de Philippe-de-Valois du 8 février 1330, pour permettre

Out of this difference between the aristocratic power of France and England, there followed many consequences of great importance. In our country the nobles, being too feeble to contend with the crown, were compelled, in self-defence, to ally themselves with the people." About a hundred years after the Conquest, the Normans and Saxons amalgamated; and both parties united against the king, in order to uphold their common rights.25 The Magna Charta, which John was forced to yield, contained concessions to the aristocracy; but its most important stipulations were those in favour of "all classes of freemen."26 Within half a century, fresh contests broke out; the barons were again associated with the people, and again there followed the same results, the extension of popular privileges, being each time the condition and the consequence of this singular alliance. In the same way, when the Earl of Leicester raised a rebellion against Henry III., he found his own party too weak to make head against the crown. He, therefore, applied to the people :27 and it is to him that our House of Commons owes its origin; since he, in 1264, set the first example of issuing writs to cities and boroughs; thus calling upon citizens and burgesses to take their place in what had hitherto been a parliament composed entirely of priests and nobles.28

dans le duché d'Aquitaine les guerres privées," &c.; and he adds, "le 9 avril 1353 le roi Jean renouvelle l'ordonnance de S. Louis, nommée la quarantaine du roi, touchant les guerres privées."

24 Sir Francis Palgrave (in his Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, vol. i. pp. 51-55) has attempted to estimate the results produced by the Norman Conquest; but he omits to notice this, which was the most important consequence of all.

26 On this political union between Norman barons and Saxon citizens, of which the first clear indication is at the end of the twelfth century, compare Campbell's Chancellors, vol. i. p. 113, with Brougham's Polit. Philos. vol. i. p. 339, vol. iii. p. 222.

In regard to the general question of the amalgamation of races, we have three distinct kinds of evidence:

1st, Towards the end of the twelfth century, a new language began to be formed by blending Norman with Saxon; and English literature, properly so called, dates from the commencement of the thirteenth century. Compare Madden's Preface to Layamon, 1847, vol. i. pp. xx. xxi., with Turner's Hist. of England, vol. viii. pp. 214, 217, 436, 437.

2d, We have the specific statement of a writer in the reign of Henry II., that "sic permixtæ sunt nationes ut vix discerni possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit genere." Note in Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. ii. p. 106.

3d, Before the thirteenth century had passed away, the difference of dress, which in that state of society would survive many other differences, was no longer observed, and the distinctive peculiarities of Norman and Saxon attire had disappeared. See Strutt's View of the Dress and Habits of the People of England, vol. ii. p. 67, edit. Planché, 1842, 4to.

26"An equal distribution of civil rights to all classes of freemen forms the peculiar beauty of the charter." Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. ii. p. 108. This is very finely noticed in one of Lord Chatham's great speeches. Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. p. 662.

27 Compare Meyer, Instit. Judic. vol. ii. p. 39, with Lingard's England, vol. ii. D. 127, and Somers Tracts, vol. vi. p. 92.

28 He is to be honoured as the founder of a representative system of government

29

The English aristocracy being thus forced, by their own weakness, to rely on the people, it naturally followed that the people imbibed that tone of independence, and that lofty bearing, of which our civil and political institutions are the consequence, rather than the cause. It is to this, and not to any fanciful peculiarity of race, that we owe the sturdy and enterprising spirit for which the inhabitants of this island have long been remarkable. It is this which has enabled us to baffle all the arts of oppression, and to maintain for centuries liberties which no other nation has ever possessed. And it is this which has fostered and upheld those great municipal privileges, which, whatever be their faults, have, at least, the invaluable merit of accustoming free men to the exercise of power, giving to citizens the management of their own city, and perpetuating the idea of independence, by preserving it in a living type, and by enlisting in its support the interests and affections of individual men.

But the habits of self-government which, under these circumstances, were cultivated in England, were, under opposite circumstances, neglected in France. The great French lords being too powerful to need the people, were unwilling to seek their alliance.30 The result was, that, amid a great variety of forms and names, society was, in reality, only divided into two classes-the upper and the lower, the protectors and the protected. And, looking at the ferocity of the prevailing manners, it is not too

in this country." Campbell's Chief-Justices, vol. i. p. 61. Some writers (see, for instance, Dalrymple's Hist. of Feudal Property, p. 332) suppose that burgesses were summoned before the reign of Henry III. but this assertion is not only unsupported by evidence, but is in itself improbable; because, at an earlier period the citizens, though rapidly increasing in power, were hardly important enough to warrant such a step being taken. The best authorities are now agreed to refer the origin of the House of Commons to the period mentioned in the text. See Hallam's Supplement. Notes, pp. 335-339; Spence's Origin of the Laws of Europe, p. 512; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. i. p. 155; Lingard's England, vol. ii. p. 138; Guizot's Essais, p. 319. The notion of tracing this to the wittenagemot, is as absurd as finding the origin of juries in the system of compurgators; both of which were favourite errors in the seventeenth, and even in the eighteenth century. In regard to the wittenagemot, this idea still lingers among antiquaries; but, in regard to compurgators, even they have abandoned their old ground, and it is now well understood that trial by jury did not exist till long after the Conquest. Compare Palgrave's English Commonwealth, part i. pp. 243 seq., with Meyer, Instit. Judic. vol. ii. pp. 152-173. There are few things in our history so irrational as the admiration expressed by a certain class of writers for the institutions of our barbarous Anglo-Saxon ancestors. 29 Montlosier, with the fine spirit of a French noble, taunts the English aristocracy with this: "En France la noblesse, attaquée sans cesse, s'est défendue sans cesse. Elle a subi l'oppression; elle ne l'a point acceptée. En Angleterre, elle a couru dès la première commotion, se réfugier dans les rangs des bourgeois, et sous leur protection. Elle a abdiqué ainsi son existence." Montlosier, Monarchie Fran çaise, vol. iii. p. 162. Compare an instructive passage in De Staël, Consid. sur la Révolution, vol. i. p. 421.

30 See some good remarks in Mably, Observations sur l'Hist. de France, vol. iii. pp. 114, 115.

31

much to say, that in France, under the feudal system, every man was either a tyrant or a slave. Indeed, in most instances, the two characters were combined in the same person. For, the practice of subinfeudation, which in our country was actively checked, became in France almost universal. By this, the great lords having granted lands on condition of fealty and other services to certain persons, these last subgranted them; that is, made them over on similar conditions to other persons, who had likewise the power of bestowing them on a fourth party, and so on in an endless series;32 thus forming a long chain of dependence, and, as it were, organizing submission into a system. 33 In England, on the other hand, such arrangements were so unsuited to the general state of affairs, that it is doubtful if they were ever carried on to any extent; and, at all events, it is certain that, in the reign of Edward I., they were finally stopped by the statute known to lawyers as Quia emptores.31

Thus early was there a great social divergence between France and England. The consequences of this were still more obvious when, in the fourteenth century, the feudal system rapidly decayed in both countries. For in England, the principle of protection being feeble, men were in some degree accustomed to self-government; and they were able to hold fast by those great institutions which would have been ill adapted to the more obedient habits of the French people. Our municipal privileges, the rights of our yeomanry, and the security of our copyholders, were, from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, the three most important guarantees for the liberties of England.35 In

31 Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 111.

32"Originally there was no limit to subinfeudation.” Brougham's Polit. Philos. vol. i. p. 279.

33 A living French historian boasts that, in his own country, "toute la société féodale formait ainsi une échelle de clientelle et de patronage." Cassagnac, Révolu tion Française, vol. i. p. 459.

34 This is 18 Edw. I. c. 1; respecting which, see Blackstone's Comment. vol. ii. p. 91, vol. iv. p. 425; Reeve's Hist. of English Law, vol. ii. p. 223; Dalrymple's Hist. of Feudal Property, pp. 102, 243, 340.

35 The history of the decay of that once most important class, the English yeomanry, is an interesting subject, and one for which I have collected considerable materials; at present, I will only say, that its decline was first distinctly perceptible in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and was consummated by the rapidly increasing power of the commercial and manufacturing classes early in the eighteenth century. After losing their influence, their numbers naturally diminished, and they made way for other bodies of men, whose habits of mind were less prejudiced, and therefore better suited to that new state which society assumed in the last age. I mention this, because some writers regret the almost total destruction of the yeoman freeholders; overlooking the fact, that they are disappearing, not in conse quence of any violent revolution or stretch of arbitrary power, but simply by the general march of affairs; society doing away with what it no longer requires. Compare Kay's Social Condition of the People, vol. i. pp. 43, 602, with a letter from Wordsworth in Bunbury's Correspond. of Hanmer, p. 440; a note in Mill's Polit.