THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. by JOHN JENKINS, Esq.

[As much of the proceeding Work relates to Feudal times and usages, the following able Paper from the pen of a modern writer cannot be otherwise than acceptable to the reader.—Ed.]

A clear idea of the Feudal System is in the highest degree interesting to the inhabitants of modern Europe, as it was the first form of society which succeeded ancient civilization, and is the foundation of most of our modern laws, systems, and institutions. Without a definite idea of this system, much or most of the present regulations of civilized life would be unintelligible.

But I have spoken of ancient civilization. What did this term mean? What does it comprise? I believe, it means that progressive or advancing state of human society, which existed among the various nations and empires of the world previous to the dissolution of the Roman Empire. The countries where this civilization reached its highest stage are well-known. History presents them in bold relief on its pages. They were Persia, Assyria, Chaldea, Egypt, Greece, and Rome; and, in an inferior degree, China and Hindoostan. In these countries the inhabitants had substituted a stationary for a wandering life, had acquired the notions and defined the limits and rights of property, had entered the bonds and enjoyed the benefits of society, had extended their ideas beyond supplying the rude necessities of life, had acquired a taste for the comforts and even luxuries of social life, had begun to cultivate the arts and sciences, had built vessels whereby they could traffic by sea, and had erected towns and cities (some of costly magnificence) on land. The bulk of the people had forsaken the sword for the plough, and exchanged the spear for the pruning-hook. They dwelt peaceably and securely in their villages, towns, and rural homes. They divided their employments. The land was cultivated, the stock of living animals was fed, and commerce carried on. A parliament or congress of the chief inhabitants assembled, and deliberated on the affairs of State. Laws were enacted, and justice administered in the public courts. The spiritual interests of the people were also provided for, and magnificent temples, churches, and cathedrals were built and adorned the land. A regular gradation of nobles or chiefs was established, to whom the people at large looked up, while a King, Sovereign, or Emperor governed the whole. These are the leading ideas connected with ancient civilization. These elements flourished largely in the last of the old empires, or that of Rome, which before its fall had transcended all that went before in commerce, civilization, learning, refinement, science, art, as well as in grandeur and extent of territory.

We have spoken of the fall of the Roman Empire. This occurred in the beginning of the fifth century. We will just glance at the state of Europe immediately before the dissolution of that vast empire. The Roman Empire (which comprised Italy and the adjacent territories) was at that time and had been for centuries the only kingdom in Europe where the arts of peace and civilization reigned. All the vast countries north of the Alps, west of the Mediterranean, and east and north of the Adriatic seas, were in a state of comparative, if not complete barbarism. Among the people who inhabited these countries we may name the Franks, who occupied Gallia or modern France; the Goths, Vandals, and Germanic tribes, who occupied modern Germany; the Scythians and other Sclavonic races who occupied modern Russia; the Visigoths, who occupied Spain; the Celts, who dwelt in Great Britain and Ireland; and the Scandinavians, who occupied the north of Europe, or Lapland, Sweden, and Norway. These various populations were, during the zenith, and down to the fall of the Roman Empire, in a state of semi if not perfect barbarism. A great portion of them were nomadic or roving tribes, and had in their career of devastation and conquest traversed the vast plains of Asia and eastern Europe, before taking up a more settled though not permanent abode in the broad plains and forests of Germany, Spain, and Russia. The Goths, Scythians, and Sclavonic tribes who thus poured into Europe, were emigrants from Asia. The native races who inhabited eastern Europe were unequal to repel the savage invasions of these formidable marauders, who inundated Europe with their fierce and unsettled bands. If we may credit the account given of these tribes by the Roman writers of the period, their manners were savage, their habits of life simple, but of a roving and predatory character. By the Roman historians they are invariably styled—the Barbarians. They cultivated not commerce, they built not cities, they dwelt not in luxurious towns. Their abode was the vast forest or plain, their occupation hunting and war, their food the produce of the chase or the plunder of war, their dress the skins of beasts and articles of the rudest manufacture. Yet in their spirit was energy, in their hearts a love of conquest and aggrandisement. After having for ages in vain withstood the conquering arms of Julius Cæsar and other Roman commanders, they in turn became the assailants. After the reign of Augustus Cæsar the military spirit of the Romans decayed their energy declined, their ambition was lost. The chief people surrendered themselves to all the enervating effects of pleasure and luxury. No valorous chief led the army in the field, no Cato or Tully thundered alarm in the Capitol, to summon the inhabitants to glory or even defence:—they were rather found revelling in riot and debauchery at home. No Pompey governed in Spain; no Sallust was Prætor in Numidia. The race of the wise and mighty had departed. The infection had reached the common people, who were equally given up to indolence, license, riot, debauchery, and sloth. In this state was Rome and the Romans, when the barbarians rose in the north under Alaric, King or Chief of the Goths, descended the Alps with the rapidity and force of the avalanche, overthrew the empire, and possessed Rome. Then was presented a scene the most unexampled the world ever beheld. The chief or warrior who a few months before held his counsels in a hut or wigwam on the banks of the Danube or Rhine, was seated on the throne of the Cæsars—the herdsman of the forest inhabited the palaces of Rome. The savage hid himself in the fine linen of the Roman citizen—the barbarian covered himself with patrician gold. The effeminate luxury of the Empire had yielded all to the insatiate energy and ambition of the North.

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 mediæval 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.

The other great influence which counteracted the feudal spirit from an earlier period, and mitigated its severities, was religion, or the Church. This was natural and inevitable; for the overwhelming influence of religion over the human mind in all ages and nations is the universal deduction of history. It appears to strike its root even the deeper, in proportion to the strength and ruggedness of the mind on which it operates, as plants are more luxuriant from the rankness of the soil where they grow. The fulminations of Sinai or the dulcet harps of Zion have seldom failed in moving the heart of man, and exciting its tenderest and best emotions. We find this verified even in the darkest times, and among the most ferocious nations. Clovis, Charlemange, and William of Normandy are magnificent illustrations. The first, from being one of the most ruthless and savage warriors and conquerors at the head of the Franks ever known in history, no sooner heard the preaching of the Gospel through the instrumentality of his wife Clotilda, than he immediately embraced its truths, and by the most abject humility and self-denying sacrifices for the remainder of his life endeavored to atone for his past cruelties. His great successor, Charlemange, less barbarous and with higher capabilities, at the head of his Germans vanquished continental Europe after innumerable and ferocious wars; yet succumbed his lofty spirit to the influence of Christianity, and prepared by his sword a way for its missionaries. We also find that William the Conqueror, by the deepest penitence and remorse, and by large munificence to the Church, sought to make recompense for the cruelties and excesses of his reign.

It was therefore inevitable that in the middle ages the influence of the Church should operate on the feudal Barons, and soften the rigors of their power. In the vicinity of the Baronial castle arose a village, whose inhabitants were generally dependent on the Lord. In the village sprung up a church and a pastor. The village Priest generally ministered to the inmates of the castle, as well as to the inhabitants of the hamlet; and as learning, or even the rudiments of scholarship, were then confined to the clergy, the religious minister was also the secretary, teacher, and counsellor of the Baronial family. He thus acquired influence and mastery over the youth and age of the circle, and seldom failed to seize the advantage in imbuing them with his benign creed. Hence the contrast presented in those ages between the chieftain in the camp and field, where he was all vigor and ferocity, and in his own hall, where he displayed many virtues of the Christian life. Hence also the generally milder character of the heir apparent and future wielder of the Baronial power, than of the sire. To this source we may also in a great measure ascribe the diminishing severity of each succeeding Baron, and the much more humane and improved conduct and manners of the late than early chieftains.

But this is regarding religion in its private and spontaneous, yet in its best influence, in subduing the rigors of the feudal chiefs. It had a separate, more worldly, but yet powerful influence in the Church. Constantine the Great made the Church (which was previously a voluntary and spontaneous association of Christian people) a national and compulsory institution, and a fundamental part of the imperial fabric: he added it to the Roman Empire; succeeding Emperors maintained it; and it became a preponderating influence in the State. It was feared that after the irruption of the Barbarians and their conquest of the Empire, although private belief and individual creeds might remain and be preserved, yet the Church as a political element and fabric would inevitably fall and perish in the imperial ruin. But in this the anticipations of men failed; for we find that the Goths, Vandals, and Scythians were equally susceptible of the influence of the religion of Christ, which many of them and especially their chieftains embraced, and often aided its progress with the sword. We also find that as soon as the barbarian conquest of Rome settled into distinct nationalities and governments, the powers followed the example of the great Constantine, and added religion to the State, and constituted the Church a political fabric. In this manner, before and at the commencement of the middle ages, every European state had its National Church. This polity existed equally in Britain, where the Church became a rich and powerful corporation, often rivalling and occasionally transcending the feudal Barons in wealth, dignities, and influence. The Prelates of the Church were by law Barons of the realm. Anselm, in the reigns of William Rufus and the first Henry,—Thomas à Becket, in that of the second,—both Archbishops of Canterbury, and Cardinal Wolsey, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, are illustrations of the great wealth, power, and dignity which the ecclesiastical hierarchy from time to time enjoyed in this country.

The extensive wealth and influence of the Church excited the jealousy and enmity of the feudal Barons, between whom were continual disputes, which sometimes led to violence and war. In their progress we find the Bishops and dignitaries of the Church occasionally substitute the mitre by the helmet, and the crosier for the sword, and rivalling the feudal chieftains in their military exploits. We also find the Church generally allied with Royalty or the sovereign power in their differences with the feudal Barons; but occasionally with the latter in curbing the royal prerogative and power. The Church generally cast its influence into the scale of either power which might happen to be weakest, and for the purpose of counterbalancing the opposite power from which there was greatest apprehension and dread of usurpation and wrong. The ecclesiastical influence and power were also much courted and cherished in general by the Kings and Queens of Britain, as a support to themselves, and a restraint on the feudal chiefs; and they often, when practicable, seized opportunities of enriching the ecclesiastical order, and adding to their power. The Church also sometimes lent its aid and influence to the popular triumph and cause. It is, therefore, evident that the feudal system met with much antagonism and counteraction from the Church, and that its rigors were much diminished in consequence. The beneficial effects which followed were not always owing to the purest motives, or the benevolence of the Church; but more frequently from the desire of maintaining its own privileges and wealth. But the results to the nation and its liberties were the same as if the ecclesiastical hierarchy had been actuated by higher motives and a purer spirit; and the well-being of the community, was equally promoted.

The Church and the boroughs, in conjunction with the royal power, therefore served to subdue the feudal spirit, and restrain and diminish the powers and privileges of its chiefs.

The effects of the Commonwealth under Cromwell must also have struck fatally at the rigors of the feudal system, in common with many other oppressions, from which they never revived. The spirit of the Commonwealth was deeply hostile to all kinds of ancient tyrrany; and as the feudal law was one of the greatest, it received a serious check. The genius of Puritanism rebelled against the feudal distinctions, as the spirit of liberty which was then triumphant overcame its oppressions. The Baron could no longer at the sound of his horn assemble his ferocious retinue of vassals and retainers, to march to the conquest of political foes, or the suppression of uprising liberty. The Knight could no more ride abroad in his panoply of steel, feared and unopposed by a rabble of villeins and serfs. The spirit of the nation was aroused to its inmost depths in the great struggle for emancipation, and statesmen and warriors arose from its lowest estates. The popular Fairfax overcame the princely Rupert; while the great Commoner—Cromwell—overthrew Royalty itself. Chivalry had to surrender its crest at Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, to popular bravery and religious zeal. The ancient order of things was entirely changed, and new institutions everywhere took its place, founded on the democratic power. Brewers and butchers now occupied the seats in the Senate formerly held by Barons and Knights; while Fleetwood and Harrison commanded the army of Manchester and Essex. No greater contrast existed than that of the Puritan captain with his skull cap, buff coat, and leather buskins, and the Cavalier with plumed hat, velvet cloak, and silk hose. Not more opposite were they in character than attire: the former a grave, stern, austere, gloomy, and religious democrat; the latter a gay, lively, free-thinking, licentious, and haughty aristocrat: the first was the impersonation of religious faith and prowess; the last of feudal pride. It was therefore inevitable, that in the course of that great struggle between the two elements which ended in the triumph of the popular cause and the establishment of the Commonwealth, feudal arrogance and oppression received a fatal shock.

The leading principle or idea embodied in the feudal system was that of a head, or chief, with dependence by the vassals and retainers. The same principle pervades our laws and institutions, and is in a great measure the fruit or effect of the feudal polity. Among other instances of its operation we may mention the law of primogeniture, the object being to create a family chief. The property qualifications necessary for parliamentary rights and representation, for the magistracy, and other stations of power and dignity, are illustrations of the same effect. The Peers sit and vote in the Upper House of Parliament as Barons of the Realm; while the Members for counties in the other House are returned as Knights of the Shire; and the Judges of the land are designated Barons of the Exchequer, or Knights’ Justices; and the parliamentary Members for boroughs are styled Burgesses,—thus still retaining their feudal distinctions. The preponderance everywhere given to property in land, over wealth in money, trade, or other moveable goods, is a result of the same policy. Indeed it may be said, that the leading principles which govern property in this Kingdom, have their main origin and foundation in the feudal system; although the legislation of the last half century has done much to abolish the enormities with which it was theretofore disfigured.

But it may be asked, what were the effects of the system which we have briefly sketched? Were they good or evil? Did they advance or retard human society and civilization? These are difficult and important questions, in the solution of which probably few will entirely agree.

That the feudal state was rendered necessary by the circumstances of the period, we have, we think, sufficiently shown. That its influence has been in some respects beneficial is also incontestible. The predominant feature of the feudal dominion was force—physical force; and this was the only one suited and practicable for the barbarian population of Europe in the middle centuries. Reason and right were terms unknown and foreign to the masses then emerging from uncivilized life. Force was their own law, and by this must they themselves have been ruled. The Baron or Lord, in enforcing the severities of the feudal code, therefore instructed his vassals in a vocabulary which they understood; he governed them by the only suitable rod. To have addressed them as citizens, and moral and accountable beings, and to have explained to them their duties and rights from a description of the nature, condition, and destinies of man, would have been to have spoken to them in an unknown tongue—in a language they could not have understood.

Moreover the very relation in which the vassals stood to their Lord, and the services and duties which they were compelled to perform, taught them obedience—trained them to docility and submission. It induced them to reflect on others than themselves,—to regard the wants and rights of others beside their own. This was a great point gained in subduing and training the barbarian just leaving his roving life in the forest or on the mountain. This was a step to further improvement, and to a milder and more rational rule; by this he was trained for a gentler government, and better laws.

The feudal institutions gave birth to chivalry, which exercised so predominant a sway through the middle ages, and in what light soever it is regarded, was beneficial in its influences. It conjures up to our mind the brilliant scenes and magnificent achievements of the period, whether viewed in the enchanting pages of romance, or the more sober records of history. It brings before our minds the mail-clad warrior dispensing refined hospitality in his armor-hung hall, to a princely retinue of retainers and guests, or mounted on his fiery steed, pressing forward to the mortal encounters of honor. The Knight is equally interesting, whether we look at him armed to avenge in single combat the maiden’s dishonor or orphan’s wrong, or we follow him into the stately tournament, there to encounter in the perilous and sometimes fatal lists. In either case we see displayed the highest qualities of man—courage, honor, dignity, fidelity, skill, and manly strength. We find the same characteristics accompany him into the tented field, where amidst hills of carnage, and at the close of a doubtful day, the bleeding knight contends bravely under the shadow of the red-cross banner. The crusades were a magnificent effect of the religious aspiration of chivalry, whatsoever opinion may now be formed of the policy of those great contests. No sight more glorious can be imagined than the chivalry of the West marching triumphantly through the heart of Europe to avenge the wrongs and indignities of the Cross upon the Infidel, and contend against four-fold odds under the walls of Antioch and Jerusalem, to recover the Holy Sepulchre from the pollution of Moslem hands. Whatsoever opinion the sober philosophy of history may now pronounce on these great wars, they were dictated by the highest aspirations, and ennobled by the most heroic actions, and they stand out nobly on the headlands of the past as monuments of human grandeur.

Although we have only viewed the institution of chivalry in its outward and more attractive aspects, yet it inculcated a high code of personal morality, very beneficial in the feudal ages. In this era the law was feeble, and its administration so often fruitless, that the greatest restraint on power, and the best security for the rights of individuals, and more especially of the weak, was personal honor; and this in its highest sense was generally characteristic of the barons and knights. They as frequently armed to redress the wrongs of the weak as to avenge their own personal injuries. The maiden’s wail, the orphan’s cry, were to them the most potent spring of action for the most fatal rencontres. The faithless knight who might happen to injure virgin purity, or oppress unarmed and defenceless people, roused the resentment of the whole order of chivalry, and was pursued from castle to cloister, and from land to land, till his blood atoned for his lust or cruelty. Chivalry inculcated upon its members the highest honor, fidelity, truth, and justice; and in the absence of strong public law, administered equally with a powerful and impartial hand, formed the best code of law and morals in the feudal times. We find examples of faithless barons and recreant knights, as there are exceptions to every rule, and blots upon every picture; yet in the main the very code in which they were instructed, and the habits which they acquired had a most beneficial influence in the formation of their characters, and furnished many illustrious examples of human virtue, and public renown.

The feudal system was, moreover, fertile of the military spirit, and this in its fullest vigor was necessary for the defence of the nation, as well as of individuals, in the dark ages. The feudal polity was first established by the sagacious Conqueror, as a military structure to overawe the vanquished Saxon; and though its rigor became relaxed in after reigns, yet its very existence rested on military organization, and the education of the soldier was its chief aim; the cultivation of the soil and the pursuits of commerce, being regarded as secondary and inferior occupations, and were treated with disdain by the feudal chiefs. Hence the universal predominance of military power and rank in the middle ages, and their monopoly of distinction and wealth. Hence also the paucity of mercantile greatness in those times.

As the martial discipline and organization of his retainers and vassals was necessary to the supremacy of the Baron, so the co-operative forces of the Barons were necessary for the maintenance of the throne, and the safety of the kingdom. The former was in continual peril from domestic ambition and discord, and the latter from foreign foes. A Montfort and a Neville, a Percy and a Douglas, were only restrained from subverting the royal power, and grasping the sceptre in their own hands, by the support given by the other Barons to the sovereign,—evinced on many a well-fought field. The invasion of the kingdom by continental armies, was only prevented by the confederate array of the King and his Barons.

In the absence of that division of employment which in modern times produced a standing army, the feudal organization with its martial aspect alone supplied the nation with its defence. No sooner did the Frank or Northman display his banner on the wave, for the conquest of Britain, than hill signalled hill, from Devon to the Orkneys, to summon the united Barons to the defence of the realm. With such alacrity was the alarm obeyed, that before a hostile flag could be planted on the headlands of the island, the enemy was driven into the sea, or to the refuge of his ships; leaving full many behind to attest the folly of the expedition. Not less ready were the feudal chiefs to follow the British ensign into foreign wars, there to sustain the glory of its fame. Poietiers and Azincour, Steinkirk and Landen, Ramilies and Blenheim, witnessed the heroic prowess of English chivalry on their hard-fought fields, while the terrible charge of the British infantry passed into the proverbs of those lands. From this system sprang an Essex and a Raleigh, a Chandos and a Churchill, with other great captains of the British hosts, who, by the military organization and discipline which it afforded to the nation, were enabled during the reigns of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, and the Stuarts to preserve our soil inviolate from a foreign foe, and to force entire Europe into respect and homage of the British name.

It is also true that the Baron, his family, domestics, and retainers, were in this era the only persons who possessed any scholarship, learning, or even good manners. The interior of the castle was graced with beauty, order, and comparative refinement. There letters and learning were sought after, if not largely acquired. Good manners and regularity prevailed. The Baron himself spent much of his time in the bosom of his family, and must have been improved in the gentler circle which there assembled. He for a time lost the bluntness and ferocity of his warlike life. A priest, or minister of religion, was also generally an appendage of the castle; and his profession, being an improving, learned, and pacific one, must have acted beneficially on those with whom he associated. The instruction and example of the inmates of the castle must therefore have been beneficial to the whole feudal society around: to which may be added the historical fact that after the introduction of the feudal system, and by the sanction and encouragement of the Barons, were compiled the only literary works of the period of which we have any account. In the solitudes of the baronial castle were composed the only chronicles of that era which have descended to us. Within the walls of the castellated abode generally dwelt the priests, bards, and other literati of the time; where they had leisure and encouragement to pursue their avocations; and thence issued forth their chronicles, poems, and productions. These influences must, therefore, have tended greatly to the civilization and improvement of the whole feudal society.

On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that the feudal state was decidedly hostile to general freedom—its very nature militated against general liberty—its existence was inconsistent with progress and the spread of freedom and intelligence. The continuance and influence of the feudal dominion depended on the passive submission of all the inhabitants of the domain. Every manifestation of discontent or uneasiness on the part of the latter was, therefore, watched by the chief with a jealous eye; every attempt at disobedience was punished with severity. The chief warded off all principles dangerous to his own monopoly of power. All struggles for general liberty were crushed with an unrelenting hand. The great and only desire of the Baron was to perpetuate the then existing system. Every attempt at amelioration was alike inimical to his wishes and power.

The feudal dominion was also extremely prejudicial to the nation in the inveterate hostility which it manifested to commerce, agriculture, and productive industry. Military power and strength being its chief aim, all pursuits which tended to divert the people from martial exercises and display were discouraged by the feudal chiefs. Hence the cultivation and improvement of the soil was but feebly prosecuted, while the pursuits of commerce and mercantile enterprise were opposed and repressed, from a suspicion of their antagonism to the feudal dominion. The Baron delighted in extensive chases, and parks studded with trees, and covered with brushwood, where game might take refuge; and in vast forests and barren uplands, where the deer and the hare might wander undisturbed; while the furrow of the corn-field and the hedge-row were restricted to the smallest dimensions consistent with the necessities of the population of the manor. The hound was more valued than the sheep-dog; the fowling-piece than the sickle; while herds of wild deer browsing the slopes were more estimated than the oxen on the plain. The huntsman and gamekeeper held higher rank than the ploughman and reaper; while all the prizes of ambition lay open to martial enterprise alone.

But to none was the hostility of the feudal chiefs more rancorous than to the pursuits of commerce. The most odious of sights was the tall chimney of a manufactory peering through the oak and elm of the chase; while the pollution of mills and workshops on the banks of pellucid streams was not to be borne. The mines of the mountain were closed, lest their produce might destroy the salmon and trout of the rivers; while houses and ships were left unbuilt, that the forests be not denuded of their stately timber.

The hostility of the feudal chiefs to mercantile progress was the more inveterate, from a feeling and knowledge of its antagonism to their own irresponsible power. Every manufactory which was set up bore a brow of hostility to the castle; while every town was in feud with the manor. In every war or tumult the towns and commercial villages ranged their forces in opposition to the Baron and his clan; and whensoever an opportunity offered for suppressing and subverting the feudal dominion and privileges, the mercantile community never failed to raise the axe and strike at their root.

The Barons, therefore, manifested the utmost dislike and hostility to the progress of manufactures and towns. Seldom could a fitting site for a village or manufactory be found except within the limits of a manor; and the lord, if he even conceded the liberty for the erection, never failed to burden the grant with exorbitant rents and exactions, and to fetter it with the most oppressive restrictions. These grants would never have been made, only for the temptation of gold. The feudal chiefs were, from their ostentatious power and display, mostly poor; and in exchange for a high rent or large purchase money, they were induced to grant tracts of land to the manufacturer and merchant, whose money capital was the only bait for the cupidity of the proprietor. Hence, from the reign of Edward the First onwards, the conflict of capital representing commerce, and territorial interest representing the lords of the soil. The former power, feeble at first, grew steadily under the more favorable reigns of succeeding monarchs, and in modern times has made such strides, as to equal, if not surpass, the ancient dominion of the fief.

Moreover, the excessive power of the Barons was full of danger to the peace and security of the realm. Where the dominion and government of the mass of the people were in so few hands, the peril of the nation was great from the discontent or ambition of one or more of the chiefs. A Mowbray, Bohun, Mortimer, or Clifford, could at the head of his clan disarrange the affairs of the entire kingdom, and plunge the nation into war. This danger was also increased from the turbulent disposition of the Barons. The feudal chiefs dwelt apart in the strongholds of their castles, and the solitude of their manors, and exercised unlimited dominion and sovereignty over the inhabitants of their domains. Their mode of life and irresponsible power generated an independence and insubordination which could ill brook restraint or abridgment even from the sovereign, setting aside from another chieftain, and which often broke out in open rebellion, defying even the power of the crown. Hence the insurrection of a Leicester, a Warwick, and a Northumberland, which required the utmost force of the sovereign and his confederate Barons to subdue. Hence also the intestine commotions and civil wars which were so prevalent in the feudal ages, and which from time to time paralysed the progress of the nation, and occasioned the sacrifice of innumerable lives.

The feudal dominion was, in the last place, very unfavorable to art, science, and discovery. Its chiefs had little leisure from foreign wars and domestic tumult for their prosecution, and had less inclination to encourage their promotion by others. Their attention was absorbed in schemes of territorial aggrandisement and political intrigue, as to devote little time to the improvement of the mind. The only learning which they patronised was the mummeries of monkish superstition and priestly adulation. True science was neglected, or even discouraged. We do not find one name throughout the dark and stormy reigns of the Plantagenets which may rank in the first class of scientific merit. We must descend to the Tudors before we meet with any light to dispel the Egyptian darkness which enveloped science. It was the reign of the virgin Queen Elizabeth which was embellished by that galaxy of illustrious stars in the firmament of discovery, which mapped out new and more useful paths for investigation, and will shed everlasting light upon science. It was in this epoch when the feudal dominion had been shorn of much or most of its pristine glory, and when commerce and manufactures were encouraged, and the liberty of the subject was more secure—that a Bacon, a Raleigh, a Camden and a Davis, arose to delight and bless mankind with their magnificent discoveries. The paths shadowed out by these great names were afterwards pursued under still more auspicious reigns, throughout which we find a joint alliance and equal progress between mercantile grandeur and civil freedom, and their hand-maiden science. In these latter times we meet with a Newton, a Davy, a Watt, and a Stephenson, whose discoveries and works have yoked matter to accomplish the purposes of man, and made the elements tributary to his designs. It is likewise more than probable that had the human mind in modern times not emancipated itself from feudal servility and thraldom, Britain and the world would have been deprived of these universal blessings, and our own glorious island would at present hold little or no higher rank in Europe than benighted Spain, or the Italian peninsula.

Now that the pomp, glory, and circumstance of the feudal state have passed away, we may leisurely look back on its history, contemplate its features, and observe its effects and tendencies. In this retrospect we are encouraged by the better condition of the age in which we live, and the brightening prospects of the future. But in all our inquiries and wanderings let us never forget that man has in all ages been inconstant, and human nature imperfect, and that the best of all institutions are probably those which approximate the laws that Solon gave to the Athenians; who said, “My laws are not the best ones possible, but they are the best which the Athenians can bear.”

Will be Published as soon as Subscribers for 300 copies are obtained, in one Volume Demy 8vo., Price 12s.,

THE WELSH WORKS OF IEUAN PRYDYDD HIR,

(Barddoniaeth, Pregethau, a Llythyrau).

The Volume will contain upwards of 500 pages of letter-press; and the Work will be Edited by ONE OF THE MOST EMINENT WELSH LITERATEURS.

Subscribers’ names should be sent with as little delay as possible to JOHN PRYSE, PUBLISHER, LLANIDLOES.

PRINTED BY OWEN MILLS, LLANIDLOES.