MODIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM IN ENGLAND.
It was transplanted hither from Normandy, by William the Conqueror.
Some customs of a feudal character existed here among our Anglo-Saxon
ancestry, but they were not moulded into a system. The strong arm of
William bent the English constitution into the feudal shape; but,
happily, it had an elasticity as great as that of his own bow, and at
length regained its wonted liberty. He took care to employ feudalism
so as to make it subservient, as much as possible, to the
establishment of his own authority, and so as to avoid the evils by
which it beset and limited the French monarchy. In France the barons
were almost independent sovereigns, and the king had but little
power, save in his own immediate domains. But when William divided
the broad lands of England among his followers, he innovated upon the
French system. In France, it was held as a doctrine, that an oath of
allegiance was due from the vassal to his immediate lord, and to no
other. But William, as sagacious in the cabinet as he was valorous
in the field, required that all the land-owners of England, whether
sub-tenants, or tenants in chief, should swear fealty to him as their
sovereign. In England, then, the vassal was not exclusively
dependent on his lord; he was dependent also on his prince; hence,
allegiance was divided, and consequently the barons' power was
lessened. The judicial institutions of England were also different
from those of France. In the latter country, the baron was the chief
justice in his own province, and all were bound to submit to his
authority; but in England, besides the baron's court, there were the
old Saxon county courts, where the freeholders and the barons were
required to assist the sheriffs in the administration of justice;
and, supreme over the whole, there was the king's court, (whose
judges were afterwards made itinerant,) appointed to give sentence
even among the barons, and to receive appeals from the courts below;
so that all judicial power was gradually drawn from the Anglo-Norman
barons, and grasped by the strong hand of royalty. It is further to
be observed, that the largest fiefs under the English crown, were far
inferior in extent to some held under the crown of France; and that,
while the latter were compact, the former were scattered through
several counties. The English baronies were consequently far more
feeble than those on the other side the channel, and hence our feudal
monarchy under the Normans and the first Plantagenets was in a much
more palmy state than the feudal monarchy of our neighbours under the
early princes of the house of Capet. Louis VI. and VII. had but the
shadow of royalty; the Williams and the early Henries grasped a real
sceptre. It may seem inconsistent with this that at the period in
question the French monarch ruled without a parliament, while the
Norman princes convoked the peers of the realm to aid them in
conducting affairs; but this very difference, in fact, arose from the
independence of the French and the subjection of the English crown
vassals. The barons of France cared not to attend upon the king's
council, since no law emanating thence could bind them without their
personal consent; but the barons of England were constrained to
attend upon the royal summons, for if they remained absent, they were
still bound to obey any laws that might be made. Another
characteristic of English feudalism remains to be noticed. In
addition to the usual feudal incidents, such as reliefs, fines,
alienations, and aids, two other customs, which probably had before
existed in Normandy, prevailed in England. These were, certain
claims connected with wardship and marriage. The lord of the fief
was the guardian of the heir during his minority; he had the custody
of his person and his lands, without rendering any account of the use
made of the profits. In the case of a male, the guardianship
continued till the minor arrived at the age of twenty-one; in the
case of a female, it terminated at the age of fourteen, when the
young lady could marry, and her husband do suit and service for her.
But before she attained that age, her lord could offer her in
marriage to whom he pleased, provided it was without disparagement or
inequality of rank; and if she refused the alliance, she had to
forfeit from her estate just so much as the person to whom her hand
had been offered would have given for the match. The penalty was
still more severe if she married without the baron's consent; for, in
that case, a fine, equal to double what an alliance with her was
valued at, was exacted by her ruthless sovereign. In addition to all
this, the feudal lord in England extended his authority over the
daughters of all his vassals, not allowing any of them to be married
but on condition of the payment of a certain sum; so that marriages
yielded him an abundant harvest of revenue.
These incidents were, obviously, oppressive to no small degree. They
fell with especial weight on the immediate tenants of the crown; and
so intolerable were the exactions of royalty, so rapacious and unjust
was the whole of the regal administration, from William to John,
that, at length, the system could be endured no longer; and though,
singly, the English barons might be weak, united, they formed an
effectual breakwater against the proud surges of monarchical
oppression, and obtained the grand palladium of English liberty, the
great charter. That venerable instrument materially modified the
feudal demands, limiting reliefs to a certain sum, restraining the
wastes committed by guardians in chivalry, forbidding the
disparagement of female wards in matrimony, and securing widows from
compulsory marriages. Beside these special provisions, in reference
to feudal claims, the principles of our constitution which are there
laid down, such as the _habeas corpus_, trial by jury, and the
necessity of the people's consent to their own taxation, tended to
modify the working of feudalism; in short, they struck at its vital
principle, drained out its very life blood, and left it slowly to
expire. The charter was admirably contrived; its principles were
slowly developed. "Its effect," says Mackintosh, "was not altogether
unlike the grand process by which nature employs snows and frosts to
cover her delicate germs, and to hinder them from rising above the
earth, till the atmosphere has acquired the mild and equal
temperature which insures them against blights."
Feudalism is a system which has borne a conspicuous part in the
civilisation of Europe. It has left a visible impression on the laws
and habits of our own country. We find its remains, we feel its
lingering power in various directions. The lawyer traces its
influence on our jurisprudence; the statesman sees its impress on our
constitution; the antiquary recognises its relics in many of our
customs; and the philosopher detects its spirit as an element in the
mass of society, which has not yet lost all its power. As the
disintegrated portions of primary rocks may be discovered in recently
formed strata--as fragments of ancient structures may be sometimes
seen wrought up in buildings of modern date; so portions of the
feudal system may be discovered in our present laws and institutions,
and may be seen staring forth in the political and social fabric of
the present day.