Part I.

Representative Institutions In England, France, And Spain,

From The Fifth To The Eleventh Century.

Lecture I.

Simultaneous development of history and civilization.

Two errors in our method of considering the past; proud

disdain, or superstitious admiration.

Historic impartiality the vocation of the present age.

Divisions of the history of the political institutions

of Europe into four great epochs.

Representative government was the general and natural aim of

these institutions.

Object of the course; inquiry into the origin of

representative government in France, Spain, and England.

State of mind appropriate to this inquiry.

Views of History.

Gentlemen,--Such is the immensity of human affairs, that, so far

from exhibiting superannuation and decay with the progress of

time, they seem to gain new youth, and to gird themselves afresh

at frequent intervals, in order to appear under aspects hitherto

unknown. Not only does each age receive a vocation to devote

itself especially to a particular region of inquiry; but the same

studies are to each age as a mine but little explored, or as an

unknown territory where objects for discovery present themselves

at every step. In the study of history this truth is especially

apparent.

{2}

The facts about which history concerns itself neither gain nor

lose anything by being handed down from age to age; whatever we

have seen in these facts, and whatever we can see, has been

contained in them ever since they were originally accomplished;

but they never allow themselves to be fully apprehended, nor

permit all their meaning to be thoroughly investigated; they

have, so to speak, innumerable secrets, which slowly utter

themselves after man has become prepared to recognise them. And

as everything in man and around him changes, as the point of view

from which he considers the facts of history, and the state of

mind which he brings to the survey, continually vary, we may

speak of the past as changing with the present; unperceived facts

reveal themselves in ancient facts; other ideas, other feelings,

are called up by the same names and the same narratives; and man

thus learns that in the infinitude of space opened to his

knowledge, everything remains constantly fresh and inexhaustible,

in regard to his ever-active and ever-limited intelligence.

This combined view of the greatness of events and the feebleness

of the human mind, never appears so startlingly distinct as upon

the occurrence of those extraordinary crises, which, so to speak,

entirely delocalize man, and transport him to a different sphere.

Such revolutions, it is true, do not unfold themselves in an

abrupt and sudden manner. They are conceived and nurtured in the

womb of society long before they emerge to the light of day. But

the moment arrives beyond which their full accomplishment cannot

be delayed, and they then take possession of all that exists in

society, transform it, and place everything in an entirely new

position; so that if, after such a shock, man looks back upon the

history of the past, he can scarcely recognise it. That which he

sees, he had never seen before; what he saw once, no longer

exists as he saw it; facts rise up before him with unknown faces,

and speak to him in a strange language. He sets himself to the

examination of them under the guidance of other principles of

observation and appreciation. Whether he considers their causes,

their nature, or their consequences, unknown prospects open

before him on all sides. The actual spectacle remains the same,

but it is viewed by another spectator occupying a different

place;--to his eyes all is changed.

{3}

What marvel is it, gentlemen, if, in this new state of things and

of himself, man adopts, as the special objects of his study,

questions and facts which connect themselves more immediately

with the revolution which has just been accomplished,--if he

directs his gaze precisely towards that quarter where the change

has been most profound? The grand crises in the life of humanity

are not all of the same nature; although they, sooner or later,

influence the whole mass of society, they act upon it and

approach it, in some respects, from different sides. Sometimes it

is by religious ideas, sometimes by political ideas, sometimes by

a simple discovery, or a mechanical invention, that the world is

ruled and changed. The apparent metamorphosis which the past then

undergoes is effected chiefly in that which corresponds to the

essential character of the revolution that is actually going

forward in the present. Let us imagine, if we can, the light in

which the traditions and religious recollections of Paganism must

have appeared to the Christians of the first centuries, and then

we shall understand the new aspects under which old facts present

themselves in those times of renovation, which Providence has

invested with a peculiar importance and significance.

Our Historical Position.

Such is, gentlemen, up to a certain point, the position in which

we ourselves are placed with regard to that subject which is to

come before us in the present course of lectures. It is from the

midst of the new political order which has commenced in Europe in

our own days that we are about to consider, I do not say

naturally, but necessarily, the history of the political

institutions of Europe from the foundation of modern states. To

descend from this point of view is not in our power. Against our

will, and without our knowledge, the ideas which have occupied

the present will follow us wherever we go in the study of the

past. Vainly should we attempt to escape from the lights which

they cast thereupon; those lights will only diffuse themselves

around on all sides with more confusion and less utility. We will

then frankly accept a position which, in my opinion, is

favourable, and certainly inevitable. We attempt to-day, and with

good reason, to reconnect what we now are with what we formerly

were; we feel the necessity of bringing our habits into

association with intelligent feeling, to connect our institutions

with our recollections, and, in fine, to gather together the

links in that chain of time, which never allows itself to be

entirely broken, however violent may be the assaults made upon

it.

{4}

In accordance with the same principles, and guided by the same

spirit, we shall not refuse the aid which can be derived from

modern ideas and institutions, in order to guide our apprehension

and judgment while studying ancient institutions, since we

neither can, nor would wish to be separated from our proper

selves, any more than we would attempt or desire to isolate

ourselves from our forefathers.

Sources of Error.

This study, gentlemen, has been much neglected in our days; and

when attempts have been made to revive it, it has been approached

with such a strong preoccupation of mind, or with such a

determined purpose, that the fruits of our labour have been

damaged at the outset. Opinions which are partial and adopted

before facts have been fairly examined, not only have the effect

of vitiating the rectitude of judgment, but they moreover

introduce a deplorable frivolity into researches which we may

call material. As soon as the prejudiced mind has collected a few

documents and proofs in support of its cherished notion, it is

contented, and concludes its inquiry. On the one hand, it beholds

in facts that which is not really contained in them; on the other

hand, when it believes that the amount of information it already

possesses will suffice, it does not seek further knowledge. Now,

such has been the force of circumstances and passions among us,

that they have disturbed even erudition itself. It has become a

party weapon, an instrument of attack or defence; and facts

themselves, inflexible and immutable facts, have been by turns

invited or repulsed, perverted or mutilated, according to the

interest or sentiment in favour of which they were summoned to

appear.

In accordance with this prevailing circumstance of our times, two

opposite tendencies are observable in those opinions and writings

which have passed a verdict on the ancient political institutions

of Europe. On the one hand, we see minds so overpowered by the

splendour of the new day which has dawned upon mankind, that they

see in the generations which preceded, only darkness, disorder,

and oppression,--objects either for their indignation or their

contempt. Proud disdain of the past has taken possession of these

minds,--a disdain which exalts itself into a system. This system

has presented all the characteristics of settled impiety.

{5}

Laws, sentiments, ideas, customs, everything pertaining to our

forefathers, it has treated with coldness or scorn. It would seem

as if reason, regard for justice, love of liberty, all that makes

society dignified and secure, were a discovery of to-day, made by

the generation which has last appeared. In thus renouncing its

ancestors, this generation forgets that it will soon join them in

the tomb, and that in its turn it will leave its inheritance to

its children.

Disdain for the Past.

This pride, gentlemen, is not less contrary to the truth of

things than fatal to the society which entertains it. Providence

does not so unequally deal with the generations of men, as to

impoverish some in order that the rest may be lavishly endowed at

their expense. It is doubtless true, that virtue and glory are

not shared in a uniform degree by different ages; but there is no

age which does not possess some legitimate claim upon the respect

of its descendants. There is not one which has not borne its part

in the grand struggle between good and evil, truth and error,

liberty and oppression. And not only has each age maintained this

laborious struggle on its own account, but whatever advantage it

has been able to gain, it has transmitted to its successors. The

superior vantage-ground on which we were born, is a gift to us

from our forefathers, who died upon the territory themselves had

won by conquest. It is then a blind and culpable ingratitude

which affects to despise the days which are gone. We reap the

fruits of their labours and sacrifices:--is it too much for us to

hallow the memory of those labours, and to render a just

recompense for those sacrifices?

If those men who affect, or who actually feel, this irreverent

disdain or indifference for ancient times, were better acquainted

with these times and their history, they would find themselves

constrained to entertain a different opinion. When, in fact, we

investigate the cause of this unnatural state of mind, only one

explanation can be found. At the moment of grand social reforms,

during epochs full of ambition and hope, when important changes

are on all sides demanded and necessary, the authority of the

past is the one obstacle which opposes itself to all tendency to

innovation. The present time seems devoted to errors and abuses,

and the wisdom of centuries is appealed to by one party in order

to resist the future to which the aspirations of the other party

are directed.

{6}

Accordingly, a kind of blind hatred of the past takes possession

of a great number of men. They regard it as making common cause

with the enemies of present amelioration, and the weapons

employed by these latter confirm this idea in their mind.

Gentlemen, the notion is full of falsehood and misapprehension.

It is not true that injustice and abuses alone can shelter

themselves under the authority of antiquity, that they only are

capable of appealing to precedent and experience. Truth, justice,

and rectitude, are also graced by venerable titles; and at no

period has man allowed them to be proscribed. Take in succession

all the moral needs, all the legitimate interests of our society,

arrange them in systematic order, and then traverse the history

of our country;--you will find them constantly asserted and

defended,--all epochs will afford you innumerable proofs of

struggles endured, of victories won, of concessions obtained in

this holy cause. It has been carried on with different issues,

but in no time or place has it been abandoned. There is not a

truth or a right which cannot bring forward, from any period of

history, monuments to consecrate, and facts to vindicate it.

Justice has not retired from the world, even when it finds there

least support: it has constantly sought and embraced, both with

governments and in the midst of peoples, all opportunities for

extending its dominion. It has struggled, protested, waited; and

when it has had only glory to bestow upon those who have fought

for it, it has bestowed that glory with a liberal hand.

True Value of the Past.

Let us then, gentlemen, reassure ourselves with reference to the

study of the past. It contains nothing which ought to alarm the

friends of all that is good and true. It is into their hands, on

the contrary, and in subservience to interests which are dear to

them, that it will ever deposit the authority of antiquity and

the lessons of experience.

Undue Veneration of Antiquity.

This unjust contempt for ancient institutions, however, this wild

attempt to dissever the present from its connexion with former

ages and to begin society afresh, thus delivering it up to all

the dangers of a position in which it is deprived of its roots

and cast upon the protection of a wisdom which is yet in its

infancy, is not an error of which we have been the first to give

an example. In one of those ephemeral parliaments which attempted

to maintain its existence under the yoke of Cromwell, it was

seriously proposed to deliver up to the flames all the archives

in the Tower of London, and thus to annihilate the monuments of

the existence of England in former ages.

{7}

These infatuated men wished to abolish the past, flattering

themselves that they would then obtain an absolute control over

the future. Their design was rejected, and their hope foiled; and

very soon England, regaining, with new liberties, respect for all

its recollections of the past, entered upon that career of

development and prosperity which it has continued up to our

times.

Side by side with this infatuation which has induced men,

otherwise enlightened, to neglect the study of the ancient

institutions of Europe, or only to regard their history with a

hasty and supercilious glance, we have seen another infatuation

arise, perhaps still more unreasonable and arrogant. Here, as

elsewhere, impiety has been the herald of superstition. The past,

so despised, so neglected by the one party, has become to the

other an object of idolatrous veneration. The former desire that

society, mutilating its own being, should disown its former life;

the latter would have it return to its cradle, in order to remain

there immovable and powerless. And as those lords of the future

would in their own wild fancy create out of it, so far as regards

government and social order, the most brilliant Utopias, so

these, on the other hand, find their Utopia in their dreams of

the past. The work might appear more difficult; the field open to

the imagination may seem less open, and facts might be expected

sometimes to press inconveniently against the conclusions sought.

But what will not a preoccupied mind overcome? Plato and

Harrington, giving to their thoughts the widest range, had

constructed their ideal of a republic; and we, with still more

confidence, have constructed our ideal of feudalism, of absolute

power, and even of barbarism. Fully organized societies, adorned

with freedom and morality, have been conceived and fashioned at

leisure, in order thence to be transported into past ages. After

having attempted to resolve, according to principles opposed to

modern tendencies, the great problem of the harmony between

liberty and power, between order and progress, we have required

that ancient facts should receive these theories and adapt

themselves to them.

{8}

And since, in the vast number of facts, some are to be found

which lend themselves with docility and readiness to the purposes

which they are required to serve, the discoverers of this

pretended antiquity have not lacked either quotations or proofs

which might seem to give it an ascertained and definite existence

in the past. Thus, France, after having spent more than five

centuries in its struggles to escape from the feudal system, has

all at once discovered that it was wrong in liberating itself

from this system, for that in this state it possessed true

happiness and freedom; and history, which believed itself to be

chargeable with so many evils, iniquities, and convulsions, is

surprised to learn that it only hands down to us recollections of

two or three golden ages.

Progress, the Law of Nature.

There is no necessity for me, gentlemen, to offer any very

serious opposition to this fantastic and superstitious adoration

of the past. It would hardly have merited even a passing

allusion, were it not connected with systems and tendencies in

which all society is interested. It is one of the collateral

circumstances of the grand struggle which has never ceased to

agitate the world. The interests and ideas which have

successively taken possession of society have always wished to

render it stationary in the position which has given it over to

their rule; and when it has escaped from them, it has ever, in so

doing, had to withstand those seductive images and influences

which these interests have called to their aid. There is no fear

that the world will allow itself to be thus ensnared:--progress

is the law of its nature; hope, and not regret, is the spring of

its movement:--the future alone possesses an attractive virtue.

Peoples who have emerged from slavery have always endeavoured by

laws to prevent enfranchised man from again falling into

servitude. Providence has not been less careful with regard to

humanity; and the chains which have not sufficed to confine it,

are still less able to resume the grasp which they have lost. But

the efforts of a retrograde system have often perverted the study

of ancient times. The Emperor Julian saw in the popular fables of

Greece a philosophy capable of satisfying those moral necessities

which Christianity had come to satisfy, and he demanded that men

should see and honour in the history of decayed paganism that

which only existed in his dreams.

{9}

The same demands have been made with as little reason on behalf

of the ancient political institutions of Europe. Justice, and

justice alone, is due to that which no longer exists, as well as

to that which still remains. Respect for the past means neither

approbation nor silence for that which is false, culpable, or

dangerous. The past deserves no gratitude or consideration from

us, except on account of the truth which it has known, and the

good which it has aimed at or accomplished. Time has not been

endowed with the unhallowed office of consecrating evil or error;

on the contrary, it unmasks and consumes them. To spare them

because they are ancient, is not to respect the past, but it is

to outrage truth, which is older than the world itself.

The Duty of Impartiality.

If I am not mistaken, gentlemen, we are at this time in an

especially favourable position for avoiding both of the general

errors which I have just described. Perhaps few persons think so;

but impartiality, which is the duty of all times, is, in my

opinion, the mission of ours:--not that cold and unprofitable

impartiality which is the offspring of indifference, but that

energetic and fruitful impartiality which is inspired by the

vision and admiration of truth. That equal and universal justice,

which is now the deepest want of society, is also the ruling idea

which is ever foremost in position and influence, wherever the

spirit of man is found. Blind prejudices, insincere declamation,

are no longer any more acceptable in the world of literature,

than are iniquity and violence in the world of politics. They may

still have some power to agitate society, but they are not

permitted either to satisfy or to govern it. The particular state

of our own country strengthens this disposition, or, if you

please, this general tendency, of the European mind. We have not

lived in that state of repose in which objects appear continually

under almost the same aspects, in which the present is so

changeless and regular as to present to man's view an horizon

that seldom varies, in which old and powerful conventionalisms

govern thought as well as life, in which opinions are well nigh

habits, and soon become prejudices;--we have been cast not only

into new tracks, but these are continually interrupted and

diversified. All theories, all practices, are displayed in union

or in rivalry before our eyes.

{10}

Facts of all kinds have appeared to us under a multitude of

aspects. Human nature has been urged impetuously onwards, and

laid bare, so to speak, in all the elements of which it is

constituted. Affairs and men have all passed from system to

system, from combination to combination; and the observer, while

himself continually changing his point of view, has been the

witness of a spectacle which changed as often as he. Such times,

gentlemen, offer but little tranquillity, and prepare tremendous

difficulties for those which shall follow them. But they

certainly give to minds capable of sustaining their pressure, an

independent disposition, and an extended survey, which do not

belong to more serene and fortunate periods. The large number,

and the unsettled character of the facts which appear before us,

widen the range of our ideas; the diversity of trials which all

things undergo within so short an interval, teach us to judge

them with impartiality; human nature reveals itself in its

simplicity, as well as in its wealth. Experience hastens to

fulfil its course, and, in some sort, hoards its treasures; in

the short space of one life, man sees, experiences, and attempts

that which might have sufficed to fill several centuries. This

advantage is sufficiently costly, gentlemen, to act at least as

an inducement to our reaping it. It does not become us to

entertain narrow views and obstinate prejudices; to petrify the

form of our judgments by foregone conclusions; in fine, to ignore

that diffusion of truth, which has been attested by so many

vissicitudes, and which imposes on us the duty of seeking it

everywhere, and rendering it homage wherever we meet it, if we

would have its sanction to our thoughts, and its aid to our

utterance.

Value of Revolutions.

In this spirit, gentlemen, we shall attempt to consider the

ancient political institutions of Europe, and to sketch their

history. While for this purpose we appropriate such lights as our

age can furnish, we shall endeavour to carry with us none of the

passions which divide it. We shall not approach past times under

the guidance of such impressions belonging to the present, as

those whose influence we have just deplored; we shall not address

to them those questions which, by their very nature, dictate the

answers which they shall receive. I have too much regard for

those who listen to me, and for the truth after which I, in

common with them, am seeking, to suppose that history can in any

sense consent to suppress that which it has asserted, or to utter

what is not affirmed by the voice of truth. We must interrogate

it freely, and then leave it to full independence.

{11}

Study of Political Institutions.

This study, gentlemen, requires a centre to which it may stand in

relation,--we must find for so large a number of facts, a bond

which may unite and harmonize them. This bond exists in the facts

themselves--nothing can be less doubtful. Unity and

consecutiveness are not lacking in the moral world, as they are

not in the physical. The moral world has, like the system of

celestial bodies, its laws and activity; only the secret

according to which it acts is more profound, and the human mind

has more difficulty in discovering it. We have entered upon this

inquiry so late, that events already accomplished may serve us as

guides. We have no need to ask of some philosophical hypothesis,

itself perhaps uncertain and incomplete, what, in the order of

political development, has been the tendency of European

civilization. A system which evidently, from a general view of

the subject, adheres continually to the same principles, starts

from the same necessities, and tends to the same results,

manifests or proclaims its presence throughout the whole of

Europe. Almost everywhere the representative form of government

is demanded, allowed, or established. This fact is, assuredly,

neither an accident, nor the symptom of a transient madness. It

has certainly its roots in the past political career of the

nations, as it has its motives in their present condition. And

if, warned by this, we turn our attention to the past, we shall

everywhere meet with attempts, more or less successful, either

made with a conscious regard to this system so as to produce it

naturally, or striving to attain it by the subjugation of

contrary forces. England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany and

Sweden, supply us with numerous illustrations of this. If we look

to one quarter we shall see these attempts after they have lasted

for some time, and assumed an historical consistency; in another,

they have hardly commenced before they issue in failure; in a

third, they end in a kind of federation of the governments

themselves. Their forms are as diverse as their fortunes. England

alone continues these struggles without intermission, and enters

at last into full enjoyment of their realization.

{12}

But everywhere they take their place in history, and influence

the destinies of nations. And when at last, no longer finding

even the shadow of a representative government on the Continent

of Europe, and beholding it only in the parliament of Great

Britain, a man of genius inquires into its origin, he says that

"this noble system was first found in the woods of Germany," from

whence the ancestors of the whole of Europe have all equally

proceeded.

Origin of Representative Government.

In this opinion, as will be afterwards seen, I do not agree with

Montesquieu; but it is evident, both from ancient facts and from

those which we ourselves have witnessed, that the representative

form of government has, so to speak, constantly hovered over

Europe, ever since the founding of modern states. Its

reappearance at so many times and in so many places, is not to be

accounted for by the charm of any theory, or the power of any

conspiracy. In the endeavour after it, men have often ignored its

principles and mistaken its nature, but it has existed in

European society as the basis of all its deepest wants and most

enduring tendencies; sovereigns have invoked its aid in their

hours of difficulty, and nations have ever returned to it during

those intervals of prosperity and repose in which the march of

civilization has been accelerated. Its most undeveloped efforts

have left behind them indelible mementos. Indeed, ever since the

birth of modern societies, their condition has been such, that in

their institution, in their aspirations, and in the course of

their history, the representative form of government, while

hardly realized as such by the mind, has constantly loomed more

or less distinctly in the distance, as the port at which they

must at length arrive, in spite of the storms which scatter them,

and the obstacles which confront and oppose their entrance.

We do not then, gentlemen, make an arbitrary choice, but one

perfectly natural and necessary, when we make the representative

form of government the central idea and aim of our history of the

political institutions of Europe. To regard them from this point

of view will not only give to our study of them the highest

interest, but will enable us rightly to enter into the facts

themselves, and truly to appreciate them. We shall then make this

form of government the principal object of our consideration. We

shall seek it wherever it has been thought to be discernible,

wherever it has attempted to gain for itself a footing, wherever

it has fully established itself.

{13}

We shall inquire if it has in reality existed at times and in

places where we have been accustomed to look for its germs.

Whenever we find any indications of it, however crude and

imperfect they may be, we shall inquire how it has been produced,

what has been the extent of its power, and what influences have

stifled it and arrested its progress. Arriving at last at the

country where it has never ceased to consolidate and extend

itself, from the thirteenth century to our own times, we shall

remain there in order to follow it in its march, to unravel its

vicissitudes, to watch the development of the principles and

institutions with which it is associated, penetrating into their

nature and observing their action,--to study, in a word, the

history of the representative system in that country where it

really possesses a history which identifies itself with that of

the people and their government.

Before undertaking this laborious task, it will be necessary for

me, gentlemen, to exhibit before you, in a few words, the chief

phases of the political condition of Europe, and the series of

the principal systems of institutions through which it has

passed. This anticipatory classification,--which is but a general

survey of facts which will afterwards reappear before you and

bring their own evidence with them,--is necessary, not only in

order to clear the way before us in our study, but also to

indicate the particular institutions and times which the point of

view we have chosen for ourselves especially calls us to

consider.

Four Epochs in European History.

The history of the political institutions of Europe divides

itself into four general epochs, during which society has been

governed according to modes and forms essentially distinct.

The tribes of Germany, in establishing themselves on the Roman

soil, carried thither with them their liberty, but none of those

institutions by which its exercise is regulated and its

permanence guaranteed. Individuals were free,--a free society,

however, was not constituted. I will say further, that a society

was not then existent. It was only after the conquest, and in

consequence of their territorial establishment, that a society

really began to be formed either among the conquerors and the

conquered, or among the victors themselves.

{14}

The work was long and difficult. The positions in which they were

placed were complicated and precarious, their forces scattered

and irregular, the human mind little capable of extensive

combinations and foresight. Different systems of institutions, or

rather different tendencies, appeared and contended with each

other. Individuals, for whom liberty then meant only personal

independence and isolation, struggled to preserve it. Those who

were strong succeeded in obtaining it, and became powerful;--

those who were weak lost it and fell under the yoke of the

powerful. The kings, at first only the chiefs of warrior bands,

and then the first of the great territorial proprietors,

attempted to confirm and extend their power; but simultaneously

with them an aristocracy was formed, by the local success of

scattered forces and the concentration of properties, which did

not allow royalty to establish itself with any vigour or to exert

any wide-spread influence. The ancient liberty of the forest, the

earliest attempts at monarchical system, the nascent elements of

the feudal régime,--such were the powers which were then

struggling for preeminence in society. No general political order

could establish itself in the midst of this conflict. It lasted

till the eleventh century. Then the feudal system had become

predominant. The primitive independence and wild equality of

individuals had either become merged into a condition of

servitude, or had submitted to the hierarchical subordination of

feudalism. All central power, whether of kings or of ancient

national assemblies, had well nigh disappeared; liberty existed

co-ordinately with power; the sovereignty was scattered. This is

the first epoch. [Footnote 1]

[Footnote 1: On this see Guizot's History of Civilization in

France. Lectures vii and viii.]

The Feudal System

The second epoch is that of the feudal system. Three essential

characteristics belong to it; 1st. The reduction of the mass of

the people to slavery or a condition bordering thereon: 2nd. The

hierarchical and federative organization of the feudal

aristocracy, extending in its application both to persons and

lands: 3rd. The almost entire dissolution of the sovereignty,

which then devolved on every feudal proprietor capable of

exercising and defending it; from whence resulted the feebleness

of the royal power and the destruction of monarchical unity,

which disappeared almost as completely as national unity. This

system prevailed until the thirteenth century.

{15}

Progress Of Monarchical Power.

Then commenced a new epoch. The feudal lord, already possessed of

royal power, aspired after royal dignity. A portion of the

inhabitants of the territory, having regained somewhat of the

power they had lost, longed to become free. The feudal

aristocracy was attacked on the one hand by the enfranchisement

of the townsmen and tenants, on the other hand by the extension

of the royal power. Sovereignty tended to concentration, liberty

to diffusion;--national unity began to shape itself at the same

time as monarchical unity appeared. This was at once indicated

and promoted by attempts after a representative form of

government, which were made and renewed during nearly three

centuries, wherever the feudal system fell into decay, or the

monarchical system prevailed. But soon sovereigns also began

almost everywhere to distrust it in their turn. They could not

behold with indifference that sovereignty, which after having

been long diffused had been regained and concentrated by their

efforts, now again divided at its very centre. Besides, the

people were deficient alike in such strength and knowledge as

would enable them to continue, on the one hand, against the

feudal system, a struggle which had not yet ceased, and to

sustain, on the other hand, a new struggle against the central

power. It was evident that the times were not fully matured; that

society, which had not thoroughly emerged from that condition of

servitude which had been the successor of social chaos, was

neither so firmly consolidated nor so mentally disciplined as to

be able to secure at once order by the equitable administration

of power, and liberty by the safeguards of large and influential

public institutions. The efforts after representative government

became more occasional and feeble, and at length disappeared. One

country alone guarded and defended it, and advanced from one

struggle to another, till it succeeded. In other places, the

purely monarchical system prevailed. This result was accomplished

in the sixteenth century.

{16}

The fourth epoch has lasted from that time to our own days. It is

chiefly marked in England by the progress of the representative

system; on the Continent, by the development of the purely

monarchical system, with which are associated local privileges,

judicial institutions which exercise a powerful influence on

political order, and some remnants of those assemblies which, in

epochs anterior to the present, appeared under a more general

form, but which now confine themselves to certain provinces, and

are almost exclusively occupied with administrative functions.

Under this system, though political liberty is no longer met

with, barbarism and feudalism finally disappear before absolute

power; interior order, the reconciliation of different classes,

civil justice, public resources and information, make rapid

progress;--nations become enlightened and prosperous, and their

prosperity, material as well as moral, excites in them juster

apprehensions of, and more earnest longings for, that

representative system which they had sought in times when they

possessed neither the knowledge nor the power requisite for its

exercise and preservation.

Subject Of These Lectures.

This short epitome of facts has already indicated to you,

gentlemen, the epochs towards which our studies will be

principally directed. The objects of our search are the political

institutions of various peoples. The representative system is

that around which our researches will centre. Wherever, then, we

do not meet with those general institutions, under the empire of

which people unite themselves, and which demand the manifestation

of general society in its government,--wherever we perceive no

trace of the representative system, and no direct effort to

produce it,--there we shall not linger. All forms and conditions

of society present rich and curious subjects for observation; but

in this inexhaustible series of facts we must choose only those

which have a strict relation to one another, and a direct

interest for us. The second and the fourth epochs therefore, that

is to say, feudalism and absolute power, will occupy us but

little. We shall only speak of them so far as a consideration of

them is necessary to connect and explain the periods which will

more directly claim our attention. I purpose to study with you

the first and the third epochs, and the fourth, so far as it

relates to England.

{17}

The first epoch, which shows us the German people establishing

themselves on Roman soil--the struggle of their primitive

institutions, or rather of their customs and habits, against the

natural results of their new position,--in fine, the throes

attending the earliest formation of modern nations,--has especial

claims on our notice. I believe that, so far as regards political

institutions, this time possessed nothing which deserves the

name; but all the elements were there, in existence and

commotion, as in the chaos which precedes creation. It is for us

to watch this process, under which governments and peoples came

into being. It is for us to ascertain whether, as has been

asserted, public liberty and the representative system were

actually there, whence some symptoms announced that they might

one day emerge. When, in the third epoch, we see the feudal

system being dissolved,--when we watch the first movements

towards a representative government appear at the same time with

the efforts of a central power which aims at becoming general and

organized,--we shall recognize here, without difficulty, a

subject which immediately belongs to us. We shall seek to learn

what societies were then aroused, and by what means they have

sought for trustworthy institutions, which might guarantee the

continuance at once of order and of liberty. And when we have

seen their hopes deceived by the calamities of the times, when we

have detected in the vices of the social state, far more than in

the influence of any disorderly or perverse desires, the causes

of the ill-success of these magnanimous attempts, we shall be

brought by our subject into the very midst of that people, then

treated more leniently by fortune, which has paid dearly for free

institutions, but which has guarded them to the last when they

perished everywhere else, and which, while preserving and

developing them for itself, has offered to other nations, if not

a model, yet certainly an example.

Limits Of The Inquiry.

It would be a small matter for us, gentlemen, thus to limit the

field of our inquiries so far as epochs are concerned, if we did

not also assign some boundaries in respect to place. The inquiry

would be too large and protracted were we to follow the course of

political institutions throughout the whole of Europe, according

to the plan I have just indicated. Moreover, the diversity of

events and conditions has been so great in Europe, that,

notwithstanding certain general characteristics and certain

philosophical results which the facts everywhere present, they

very often resist all the attempts we may make to bring them

under any uniform guiding principle.

{18}

In vain do we strive to collect them together under the same

horizon, or to force them into the same channel; ever do they

release themselves from our grasp in order to assume elsewhere

the place assigned to them by truth. We should therefore be

compelled either to limit ourselves to generalities yielding but

little instruction to those who have not sounded all their

depths, or else continually to interrupt the course of our

inquiry, in order to rove from one people to another with an

attention which would be continually distracted and soon wearied.

It will be more profitable for us to take a narrower range.

England, France, and Spain, will supply us with abundant

materials for our undertaking. In these countries we shall study

political institutions under the different phases and in the

various epochs which I have just exhibited before you. There we

shall find that these epochs are more clearly defined, and that

the chief facts which characterize them appear under more

complete and simple forms. In France and Spain, moreover, the

general attempts after a representative government, made in the

thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, assumed a more

definite shape. We are therefore dissuaded by a variety of

considerations from carrying our steps beyond these limits. Our

researches will thereby gain both in interest and in solidity.

Interest Of The Subject.

This interest, gentlemen, I must say at the outset, is not that

merely which attaches itself to human affairs, which are ever

attractive to man, however trivial may be the attention which he

bestows upon them. The study of the ancient political

institutions of Europe demands serious and assiduous effort. I am

here to share this with you, not to undertake it for you. I shall

be frequently obliged to enter into details, which may appear dry

at first, but which are important because of the results to which

they lead. I shall not content myself with merely presenting

before you these results as a general expression of facts; I

shall feel called upon to put you in possession of the facts

themselves. The truths which they contain must be seen by

yourselves to proceed naturally from them, and must not be

allowed a final lodgment in your minds except as they are

fortified by such evidence as can establish them.

{19}

Difficulty Of Attaining Truth.

Gentlemen, it is to be borne in mind that truth, wheresoever we

may seek it, is not easy of access. We must dig deep for it, as

for precious metals, before we find it; we must not shrink from

the difficulties, nor from the long duration of the enterprise.

It only surrenders itself to resolute and patient endeavour. And

not only on behalf of our peculiar study do I urge upon you that

you should never allow yourselves to be baffled by the fatigue

attendant upon some portions of the work;--a more elevated

motive, a more comprehensive claim, gives you this advice.

Thrasea, when dying, said to his son-in-law, Helvidius Priscus,

"Observe, young man: thou art living in times when it is well

that the spirit should become fortified by such a scene as this;

and learn how a brave man can die." Thankful should we be to

Heaven that such lessons as these are not now required by us, and

that the future does not demand such hard discipline in order

that we may be prepared to meet it. But the free institutions

which we are called upon to receive and maintain--these demand of

us, from our earliest youth, those habits of laborious and

patient application which will constitute our fittest

preparation. They require that we should, among our first

lessons, learn not to shrink either from the pain, or from the

length and arduousness of duty. If our destiny is to be sublime,

our studies must be severe. Liberty is not a treasure which can

be acquired or defended by those who set a disproportionate value

on personal ease and gratification; and if ever man attains it

after having toiled for it under the influence merely of

luxurious or impatient feelings, it denies to him those honours

and advantages which he expected to gain from its possession. It

was the error of the preceding age that, while it aimed at urging

the minds of men into a wider and more active career, it yet

fostered the impression that all was then to become easy, that

study would be transformed into amusement, and that obstacles

were removed from the first steps of a life that was to issue in

something great and impressive. The effeminate weakness of such

sentiments were relics of the feebleness of times when liberty

did not exist. We who live in the present day, know that freedom

requires from the man who would enjoy it a sterner exercise of

his powers. We know that it allows neither indolence of soul nor

fickleness of mind, and that those generations which devote their

youth to laborious study can alone secure liberty for their

manhood.

{20}

Necessity Of Hard Study.

You will find, gentlemen, as you watch the development of the

political institutions of Europe, that the experience of all ages

confirms this of our own. You will not find that those grand

designs that have been formed for the promotion of truth,

justice, and progress, have ever emanated from the abode of

sloth, of frivolity, and antipathy to all that demands labour and

patience. As you trace back such enterprises to their source, you

will always find there, serious aspect and grave determination,

existing, so to speak, in their early life. Only by men formed in

this mould have public laws and liberties been defended. They

have, according as the wants of their age impelled them, resisted

disorder or oppression. In the gravity of their own life and

thoughts they have found a true measure of their own dignity,

and, in their own, of the dignity of humanity. And, gentlemen, do

not doubt, in following their example, of achieving also their

success. You will soon become convinced that, in spite of the

tests to which it has been exposed, our age is not among the most

unrestrained that have existed. You will see that patriotism, a

respect for law and order, a reverence for all that is just and

sacred, have often been purchased at a far heavier price, and

have called for severer self-denial. You will find that there is

as much feebleness as ingratitude in the disposition that is

intimidated and discouraged by the sight of obstacles which still

present themselves, when obstacles of a far more formidable

character have not wearied the resolution of noble men of former

times. And thus, while early exercising your minds in all those

habits which will prepare man for the duties of an exalted

destiny, you will meet with nothing that will not continually

deepen your attachment to your age and to your country.

Characteristics Of The Present Time.

So far as I myself am concerned, may I be allowed, gentlemen, in

entering with you to-day upon the study of the ancient political

institutions of Europe, to congratulate myself on being able to

approach the subject with the liberty that is suitable to it. It

was in works of a similar character that I commenced my

intellectual life. But at that time the public exposition of such

facts and of the ideas related to them, was hardly permitted.

{21}

Power had arrived at that condition in which it fears equally any

representation of the oppression of peoples, and of their efforts

to obtain liberty; as if it must necessarily meet in these two

series of historical reminiscences at once the condemnation of

its past acts, and the prediction of its future perils. We are no

longer in this deplorable position; the institutions which France

has received from its sovereign have liberated at once the

present and the past. Such is the moral strength possessed by a

legitimate and constitutional monarchy, that it trembles neither

at the recitals of history nor at the criticisms of reason. It is

based upon truth,--and truth is consequently neither hostile nor

dangerous to it. Wherever all the wants of society are

recognised, and all its rights give each other mutual sanction

and support, facts present only lessons of utility, and no longer

hint at unwelcome allusions. The volume of history can now be

spread out before us; and wherever we find the coincidence of

legitimacy and constitutional order, we shall behold the

prosperity both of governments and of peoples--the dignity of

power ennobled and sustained by the dignity of obedience. In all

positions, and however great may be the interval which separates

them, we shall see man rendering honour to man; we shall see

authority and liberty mutually regarding one another with that

consideration and respect which can alone unite them in lasting

connexion and guarantee their continued harmony. Let us

congratulate ourselves, gentlemen, that we are living at a time

in which this tutelary alliance has become a necessity,--in

which force without justice could only be an ephemeral power. The

times to which we shall direct our attention experienced a harder

lot; they more than once beheld despotism root itself deeply in

its position, and at the same time saw injustice assert its claim

to a lasting rule. We, gentlemen, who have seen so many and

diversified forms of oppression,--we have seen them all fall into

decay. Neither their most furious violence, nor their most

imposing lustre, have sufficed to preserve them from the

corruption that is inherent in their nature; and we have at

length entered upon an order of things which admits neither the

oppression of force which usurps power, nor that of anarchy which

destroys it.

{22}

Conclusion.

Let us, gentlemen, reap all the advantages connected with such an

order:--let us show our respect for the distinguished author of

this Charter by approving ourselves worthy of receiving, and

capable of employing, the noble institutions which he has

founded. Our gratitude can offer no purer homage.

{23}

Lecture II.

General character of political institutions in Europe,

from the fourth to the eleventh century.

Political sterility of the Roman Empire.

Progress of the Germanic invasions.

Sketch of the history of the Anglo-Saxons

Fall Of The Roman Empire.

I have divided the history of the political institutions of

modern Europe into four great epochs, the first of which extends

from the fourth to the eleventh century. This long interval was

required to introduce a little light and fixity into the

changeful chaos of those new empires which the successive

invasions of the Roman territory by the barbarians had called

into being, and whence issued those mighty states whose destiny

constitutes the history of modern Europe. The essential

characteristics of this epoch are: the conflict and fusion of

Germanic customs with Roman institutions, the attempt to

establish monarchical government, and the formation of the feudal

regime. No general system of political institutions then existed;

no great dominant influence can be discerned; all was local,

individual, confused, obscure. A multitude of principles and

forces, mingling and acting (as it were) by chance, were engaged

in conflict to resolve a question of which men were completely

ignorant, and the secret of which God alone possessed. This

question was: What form of government would issue from all these

different elements, brought so violently into contact with each

other. Five centuries elapsed before the question was decided,

and then feudalism was the social state of Europe.

Causes Of Its Decay.

Before entering, however, upon the history of institutions, let

me say a few words upon the progress of the fall of the Roman

Empire, and of the invasions of the barbarians.

From the accession of Augustus to the death of Theodosius the

Great, the Roman Empire, in spite of its greatness, presents a

general character of impotence and sterility. Its institutions,

its government, its philosophy, its literature, indeed everything

connected with it, bears this sad impress; even the minds of its

most illustrious citizens were confined to a circle of antiquated

ideas, and wasted in vain regrets for the virtues and glories of

the Republic.

{24}

The fermentation of new ideas produces no decadence; but when, in

a great empire, society, feeling itself oppressed and diseased,

can conceive no new hopes, no grand ideas,--when, instead of

pressing onwards towards the future, it invokes only the

recollections and images of the past,--then there is a real

decline; it matters not how long the state is in falling, its

ruin is thenceforward continuous and inevitable. The fall of the

Roman Empire occupied fifteen centuries; and for fifteen

centuries it continued to decline, until its downfall was

consummated by the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. During

this long period, no new idea, no regenerative principle, was

employed to reinvigorate the life of the government; it was

sustained by its own mass. Towards the end of the third century,

when the universal servitude seemed to be most firmly

established, imperial despotism began to feel the precariousness

of its position, and the necessity for organization. Diocletian

created a vast system of administration. Throughout this immense

machine, he established underworks in harmony with the principle

of his government; he regulated the action of the central power

in the provinces, and surrounded himself with a brilliant and

puissant court: but he did not rekindle the moral life of the

Empire; he merely organized more perfectly a material resistance

to the principles of destruction which were undermining it; and

it was with this organization that, first in the West as well as

in the East, and afterwards in the East alone, the Empire was

able to struggle on, from the fourth to the fifteenth century.

Theodosius the Great, who died in 395, was the last emperor who

tightly held and skilfully managed the heterogeneous bundle of

the Roman power. He was truly a great man; for great men appear

in disgraceful times, as well as in times of success; and

Theodosius was still the master of the Roman world. As soon as he

was dead, the dissolution broke out, under his sons Honorius and

Arcadius.[Footnote 2]

[Footnote 2: Honorius succeeded peaceably to the sovereignty

of the West, which he had received from his father in the

preceding year; while his elder brother Arcadius obtained

possession of the East.]

{25}

Abandonment Of Its Colonies.

There was now no real unity or central force in the government;

Rome gradually abandoned her provinces--Great Britain, Armorica,

[Footnote 3] and Narbonnese Gaul. [Footnote 4]

[Footnote 3: The country on the north-west coast of Gaul,

from the Loire to the Seine.]

[Footnote 4: The Roman province in the south of Gaul, so

called from its chief city, Narbo or Narbonne; Cæsar calls

it simply _Provincia_, and hence comes the modern name of

Provence.]

Honorius informed the Britons that he should govern them no

longer; and directed the inhabitants of Narbonnese Gaul to elect

deputies to meet at Arles, and take upon themselves the

government of their country. The Empire had become a body

destitute of sap and vigour; and in order to prolong the life of

the trunk, it was necessary to lop off the branches. But,

although despotism was withdrawn from these provinces, servitude

remained. It is not easy to return at once to liberty and to

political life; and these people, cast upon their own resources,

were unable to defend themselves. Great Britain, though more

populous than the north of Scotland, was unable to repel a few

hordes of Picts and Scots, who, every month, descended from their

mountainous abodes, and ravaged the British territory. The

Britons besought the Emperor's assistance, and he sent them a

legion, which had no difficulty in overcoming enemies who fled

before it; but it was soon withdrawn. After its departure, the

incursions recommenced, and Britain again implored the Emperor's

aid. Honorius sent another legion; but told the suppliants that

they must provide for themselves in future, for he would send

them no more soldiers. The victorious legion left the country to

return no more, and Britain, assailed on all sides by bands of

barbarians, exhausted its energies in vain entreaties for

deliverance. There still exists a letter, entitled _Gemitus

Britannûm,_ in which the unfortunate inhabitants of that

country depict their deplorable condition to Ætius, the Patrician

of Gaul. "The barbarians," they wrote, "drive us to the sea, and

the sea drives us back to the barbarians; so that, between the

two, we must be either slaughtered or drowned." With patriotic

susceptibility, some English writers--among others Mr. Sharon

Turner, in his _History of the Anglo-Saxons_, [Footnote 5]

--have cast doubts upon the authenticity of this letter, as if

the honour of England were at all involved in the weaknesses of

the Britons of the fourth century.

[Footnote 5: Turner's _History of the Anglo-Saxons_,

vol. i., pp. 180-181.]

{26}

However this may be, and whether his aid were besought or not,

the Emperor had other matters to attend to, and left the Britons

to themselves. He abandoned, in like manner, Narbonnese Gaul and

Armorica. This last province, which was less corrupted by the

influence of Roman civilization, displayed greater energy than

the other two. It took measures for its own defence, by forming a

kind of federative league against maritime invasions. Spain,

which was also deserted, endeavoured to maintain itself in the

same manner against attacks of the same nature; but acted with

little vigour, and met with small success. In Great Britain, as

well as in Gaul, the Roman government had destroyed the energy of

their native independence, and had substituted in its stead

nothing but its own artificial and despotic organization. When

the Romans withdrew, the children of the Gauls, inhabiting Roman

cities, were incapable alike of self-government or self-defence,

and fell an easy prey to a few bands of foreign marauders, who

had come in search of booty and adventures. Let us briefly glance

at the progress of their conquests.

Invasions Of The Germans.

No determinate epoch can be accurately assigned to the first

invasions of the Germans. In all ages, their hordes were wont to

descend from their forest-fastnesses into countries less wild and

more cultivated than their own. Among their early irruptions, the

first regarding which we have any precise historical information

is that of the Cimbri and Teutones, who, three hundred thousand

in number, ravaged Italy during the time of Marius. [Footnote 6]

[Footnote 6: In B.C. 113-101. Marius finally defeated the

Teutones at Aix, in the year 102; and the Cimbri, near

Vercelli, in the year 101.]

From the age of Augustus to the fifth century, these invasions

continued, but were very unequal in importance. Bands of men,

unable to find means of subsistence in their own country, entered

the imperial territory, and pillaged as they went; their fate was

decided by the event of a battle; they were dispersed or

annihilated by a defeat, or, if victorious, they took possession

of some district which pleased them. Frequently, also, they

settled in the country by the consent of the emperors. In the

third century, Probus received three or four thousand Franks into

Auvergne.

{27}

Foundation Of Barbarian Kingdoms.

A band of Alans took up their residence in the neighbourhood of

Orleans; there was a colony of Goths in Thrace, and another of

Vandals in Lorraine. Those of the barbarian warriors who

preferred war and pillage to a fixed habitation, entered the

Roman armies. Their chieftains became generals, and even supplied

the imperial court with ministers of state. Thus the barbarians

were everywhere settled in the country, serving in the armies,

surrounding the person of the prince; formidable allies, whose

assistance the weakness of the empire was forced to accept, and

who were destined to increase in power and influence in

proportion as the imperial power decayed.

As soon as the Roman government, by abandoning several of its

provinces, proclaimed its inability to maintain its own

integrity, the question was decided,--the empire passed to the

Germans. During the interval which elapsed between the beginning

of the fifth and the end of the sixth century, they founded eight

great monarchies, some of which were established by force, whilst

others received the partial assent of the emperors.

In 409, the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi, after having ravaged Gaul,

and crossed the Pyrenees, founded by armed force, in Spain, three

monarchies, which were speedily incorporated into one; and this

one, in its turn, was, ere long, destroyed by the Visigoths.

In 429, the Vandals passed from Spain into Africa, and founded a

monarchy, which was overthrown by Belisarius.

In 414, the Burgundians founded a kingdom in Gaul, with the

consent of the emperors.

In 416, the Visigoths penetrated into Southern Gaul, where they

founded the kingdom of Aquitaine; and entered by the north-east

into Spain, where they settled, after having destroyed the

monarchy of the Suevi.

In 450, the Saxons, led by Hengist and Horsa, invaded Great

Britain, and founded the Saxon Heptarchy.

In 476, the Heruli, under the command of Odoacer, founded a

monarchy in Italy.

In 481, the Franks, with Clovis at their head, established

themselves in Gaul.

In 568, the Lombards, under the command of Alboin, conquered

Italy in their turn, and founded a monarchy.

{28}

Power Of The Emperors.

I do not propose to write the history of these monarchies; but I

shall endeavour to delineate their leading institutions and their

social condition. In the first place, however, I shall say a few

words on the method of their foundation. We must not suppose that

there was, in every instance, a cession or complete abandonment

of sovereignty by the Roman empire. The residence of a barbarian

chieftain in the country was recognised as a fact. He continued

to command his own warriors, but no legal authority was granted

him over the old inhabitants. The cities long maintained their

connexion with Rome; several of them remained municipalities, and

continued to appoint their own magistrates. Several towns in

Spain, while the country was under the dominion of the Visigoths,

received their civic rulers from Constantinople. The emperors,

though daily despoiled of some new territory, nevertheless

retained, in almost every quarter, an appearance of empire. Thus

we find them conferring on the Frankish kings the titles of

Patrician of Gaul, and of Consul. This was their protest against

the invasion. In scarcely any case was there a transference of

sovereign rights. Societies, when abandoned by their government,

either received a new one at the hands of the victor, or

endeavoured to create one for themselves.

The Anglo-Saxons.

Among these rising states, I shall first refer to the

Anglo-Saxons; then I shall pass on to the Franks; and, finally,

to the Visigoths in Spain. I have selected these three nations,

because, among them, the institutions of this period are most

distinctly marked. The Anglo-Saxons, especially, were placed in a

position most favourable for this rapid and complete development.

Not only were they more isolated than other peoples; they were

also less disturbed by continual invasions of a formidable

character. They soon became sole masters of the country. The

Britons were almost exterminated; some of them retired into

Cornwall, Wales, and Armorica; the others were dispersed, or

reduced to servitude. The Anglo-Saxons, moreover, were less under

the influence of the old Roman institutions. Among modern

nations, they are the people who, so to speak, have lived most

upon their own resources, and given birth to their own

civilization. This character is discernible in their whole

history, and even in their literature.

{29}

The Greek and Latin classics have produced but little effect upon

them; primitive and national customs have maintained their sway

in England, and received an almost unmixed development. Among the

Franks and Visigoths, the old Germanic national assemblies were

either suspended for a long period, or entirely transformed;

among the Anglo-Saxons, they never ceased; year after year, they

occurred to perpetuate ancient recollections, and to exert a

direct influence upon the government. It was, then, among the

Anglo-Saxons, that, from the fifth to the eleventh century,

institutions received the most natural and complete development.

This fact has induced me to commence our studies with their

history.

Let me briefly refer to the events which occurred during the

period of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. From 426 to 450, the

Britons, left to themselves, struggled as they could against the

inhabitants of the north of Scotland. In 449, some Saxons from

the banks of the Elbe disembarked upon the island. This descent

was neither novel nor unforeseen. It was a fact so ancient, that

the Roman emperors had appointed a magistrate--_comes littoris

Saxonici_--whose special duty it was to provide for the

defence of the coast. It is affirmed, and Hume has repeated the

statement, that this Saxon expedition had been summoned by

Vortigern, who was then chief of the Britons, to assist him

against the Picts and Scots. This appears to me neither natural

nor probable; and I find in the chronicler Nennius, a passage

which completely disproves the assertion: "Meanwhile," he says,

"there arrived from Germany three vessels full of Saxon exiles."

[Footnote 7] They came therefore spontaneously, according to

their custom. The Britons, reduced to extremities by their

untiring enemies, the Picts and Scots, endeavoured at first to

use the Saxons against them. But the new-comers quickly

discovered their strength, attempted the conquest of the country

which they had promised to defend, and succeeded in their

attempt. The Britons resisted, and even displayed somewhat of the

energy of their ancestors, under King Arthur and other leaders. A

long time elapsed before they were finally subjugated or

expelled. During the period from 455 to 582, the Saxons founded

the seven or eight kingdoms which, composed the Heptarchy, or the

Octarchy, as Mr. Sharon Turner maintains. [Footnote 8]

[Footnote 7: Nennius, cap. 31.]

[Footnote 8: _History of the Anglo-Saxons_, vol. i. p.

320.]

{30}

The kingdom of Kent was the first, founded by Hengist. The others

were the kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Northumberland (or

Bernicia and Deira), East Anglia, and Mercia. This division

continued until the year 800. At that time, Egbert, King of

Wessex, attempted to subjugate the other kingdoms, and succeeded

in reducing five under his sway; but Northumberland and Mercia

continued separate, though subordinate kingdoms, until the end of

the ninth century.

_Reign Of King Alfred._

It was at this period that the Danes and Normans made their way

into England: they long contested the possession of the country

with the Saxons; and, at the accession of Alfred, the last

new-comers held sway almost all over the land. You are all

acquainted with the history of this monarch, the greatest of the

kings of England. In the marshes where he had been compelled to

seek refuge from the pursuit of his enemies, he formed his plans

for the deliverance of his country. Disguised as a harper, he

entered the Danish camp for the purpose of learning the amount of

their forces; and finally reconquered his kingdom, after a

protracted struggle. Restored thus to his throne, Alfred laid the

foundation of English institutions, or rather, he reduced them to

order, and gave them authority. It is the custom, however, to

date their origin from him; and his reign is an era in English

legislation. Alfred is a glorious instance of a truth exemplified

by Gustavus Vasa and Henry IV. of France in later times, namely,

that the greatest princes are those who, though born to the

throne, are nevertheless obliged to conquer its possession. To

their acknowledged right they thus join ample proof of their

merit. They have lived as common individuals in the midst of

their people; and have thus become better men and better kings.

After the death of Alfred, the Danes, whose conquests had been

suspended only by the victories of that prince, gained possession

of England. Canute the Great took possession of the throne; but

he reigned with moderation, and did not change the laws of the

country. This wisdom on the part of the conqueror mitigated the

animosity of the vanquished; and the Danes and Saxons agreed so

well together, that, not long after the death of Canute the

Great, the old dynasty re-ascended the throne.

{31}

Edward the Confessor collected together the old Saxon laws; on

this account, he is still respected in England as a national

legislator. But the collection of laws which now exists under his

name was not made by him; that which he composed has

unfortunately been lost.

_The Norman Conquest._

During the reign of Edward the Confessor, a striking

exemplification was given of the power of some of the nobles, who

were in fact, if not in right, rivals of their monarch. Earl

Godwin was so powerful that he, so to speak, allowed Edward to

ascend the throne, on condition that he should marry his

daughter. At his death, his son Harold succeeded him, and

increased his authority. Harold's influence extended all over the

kingdom, and he only awaited the king's death to take possession

of the crown. When Edward died, Harold naturally succeeded to

throne. No one in England contested his usurpation. But William

the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, one of his distant relations,

alleged that Edward had bequeathed the crown to him by will. He

crossed the sea to maintain his pretended rights, and, on the

14th of October, 1066, he gave battle to Harold, at Hastings.

Harold was left dead on the field. William the Conqueror

introduced into England the feudal institutions which were then

in full vigour in Normandy. The reciprocal relations of persons

might have conduced, in England, to the establishment of this

system, and had prepared the way for it; but the legal and

hierarchical subordination of land had not yet taken firm hold in

that country. The conquest of William of Normandy disturbed the

natural course of the old Anglo-Saxon institutions, and mingled

therewith foreign elements which had already been developed,

among the Normans, by their position in Gaul, in the midst of

Roman cities, and a Roman population. We shall presently see what

decisive influence this circumstance exerted over the political

development of England.

{32}

Lecture III.

Subject of the lecture.

A knowledge of the state of persons necessary

to the proper study of institutions.

Essential difference between antiquity and modern societies,

as regards the classification of social conditions.

State of persons among the Anglo-Saxons.

Thanes and Ceorls.

Central and local institutions.

Predominance of the latter among the Anglo-Saxons.

Its cause

Anglo-Saxon Institutions.

In my preceding lecture, I gave a general outline of the decay of

the Roman empire, and of the progress of the barbarian invasions;

and I enumerated the principal events in the history of the

Anglo-Saxons in England. I now come to their institutions, which

form the subject of my present lecture.

When we are about to speak of the institutions of a country at

any given period, we must first understand what was the state of

persons in that country at that period; for words are very

deceptive. History, when speaking of the English nation or the

Spanish nation, comprises under that name all the individuals who

inhabit the country; but when we examine into the real state of

the case, we quickly discover that the facts which history

applies to an entire country, actually belong only to a very

small section of its inhabitants. It is the work of civilization

to raise up, from time to time, a greater number of men to take

an active part in the great events which agitate the society of

which they are members. As civilization advances, it reaches new

classes of individuals, and gives them a place in history. The

different conditions of society thus tend, not to confusion, but

to arrangement, under different forms and in different degrees,

in that superior region of society by which history is made.

The first question to be solved, then, is that of the state of

persons; we must precisely understand which are those classes

that really figure in history. Then will occur this other

question: What are the institutions in accordance with which that

political nation acts, which alone furnishes subject-matter for

history?

{33}

When we address the first question to antiquity, we find, as in

Modern Europe, one great classification: freemen and slaves. But

there is this difference that, in antiquity, slavery continued

stationary and immutable. Its unchangeableness in this

particular, was one of the principal characteristics of ancient

civilization. Individuals were emancipated; but the great mass of

slaves remained in bondage, everlastingly condemned to the same

social nonentity. In Modern Europe, social conditions have been

in a state of perpetual fluctuation; numerous masses of men have

fallen into slavery, while others have emerged therefrom; and

this alternation of liberty and servitude is a novel and

important fact in the history of civilization.

Thanes And Ceorls.

What was the condition of persons among the Anglo-Saxons? Here,

as elsewhere, we at first perceive the two great divisions of

freemen and slaves. The freemen, who are the only active elements

in history, were divided into two classes, _thanes_ and

_ceorls_. The thanes were the proprietors of the soil, which

was entirely at their disposal: hence the origin of freehold

tenure. The ceorls were men personally free, but possessing no

landed property. The thanes were subdivided into two classes;

king's thanes, and inferior thanes. This distinction is not

merely a historical fact; the laws recognize these two divisions.

The composition for the life of a king's thane was twelve hundred

shillings, while for that of an inferior thane it was only six

hundred. Here, as in other states which came into existence at

this epoch, punishment was made proportionate, not only to the

gravity of the offence, but also to the rank of the person

injured. By the substitution of an indemnity for retaliation, a

step was taken by these peoples towards social justice. Early

ideas of justice inflict evil for evil, injury for injury; but

the highest point of its perfection is that decision of society

which, embodying supreme reason and power, judges the actions of

men accused of crimes, and acquits or condemns them in the name

of the Eternal Justice. In the sixth century, society did not

inflict punishment; life, like everything else, had its price;

and this price was shared between the family of the dead man, the

king, and the judge.

{34}

The penalty of crime was as yet only the price paid for the

renunciation of the right of revenge which belonged to every free

man. Individuals who were injured, either in the possession of

their goods, or in the life of their relatives, received a fixed

composition from the guilty person.

Different Classes Of Thanes.

I have pointed out the legal distinction which subsisted between

the king's thanes and the inferior thanes; but when we seek to

discover what constituted the real difference of their condition,

we find that this difference was very vague, and belonged to the

time when they all led a nomadic life, rather than to their

settled agricultural existence. In Germany, or on leaving

Germany, bands, more or less numerous, united themselves to the

company of some particular chief or king. After the conquest of a

country, those chiefs who were nearest the king found themselves

in a most favourable position for becoming large landed

proprietors. These were called king's thanes, because they

belonged to the royal band. But there was nothing to separate

them essentially from the other thanes. To be a king's thane, it

was necessary to possess about forty or fifty hides of land.

[Footnote 9]

[Footnote 9: A hide of land was about 120 acres.]

Bishops and abbots were admitted into this class. The inferior

thanes were proprietors possessing less land, but able to dispose

just as freely of their property as the king's thanes. Some

writers have asserted that the king's thanes were the nobles, and

that the others were simple freemen. An attentive examination of

Anglo-Saxon institutions will prove that there was no such

difference of position and rights between the two classes. It is

a great error to expect to meet with clearly defined ranks and

conditions, at the origin of society. Some writers, however,

pretend to discover at the outset what time alone can introduce.

We meet with no nobility, constituting a superior social

condition, with recognized privileges: we perceive only the

causes which will progressively form a nobility, that is, will

introduce inequality of power and the empire of the strong. The

formation of a class of nobles has been the work of ages. An

actual superiority, transmitted from father to son, has gradually

assumed the form and characteristics of a right. When societies

have not been long in existence, we do not find in them social

conditions thus distinctly marked, and the royal family is the

only one that can, with any reason, be termed noble.

{35}

It generally derives its title from some religious filiation; for

instance, among nearly all the peoples of the north, in Denmark,

in Norway, and in England, the kings descended from Odin; and

their divine origin gave high sanction to their power.

Their Mutual Relations.

Other writers have held that the relations which subsisted

between the king's thanes and the inferior thanes were of a

different nature, corresponding to the feudal relations of lords

and vassals. The king's thanes, they say, were vassals of the

king; the inferior thanes were vassals of the king's vassals. We

may certainly discover, in the connection of these two classes of

men, some of the characteristics of feudalism. But feudalism,

such as was established on the Continent as well as in England,

after the conquest by William of Normandy, consisted essentially

in the simultaneous hierarchy of lands and persons. Such were not

the rudiments of feudalism discernible among the Anglo-Saxons. As

yet, the only hierarchy existing among them was of persons. All

the thanes held their lands in an equally free and independent

manner. At a later period, feudalism received a more complete

development; from the hierarchy of persons proceeded that of

lands, and the latter soon predominated over the former. But this

result was not manifested until after the Norman conquest. Before

that period, there were no vassals properly so called, although

the word _vassus_ occurs in a biography of King Alfred. The

causes which led to the subordination of persons, independently

of their connection with land, are simple and may easily be

conceived. When the barbarian chieftains entered the Roman

territory, they possessed an influence over their companions

which they endeavoured to retain after their settlement. The

Saxon laws, with a view to bring this rude and floating state of

society into an orderly state, provided for the maintenance of

this primitive hierarchy; and compelled every freeman who had

attained the age of twelve years, to enrol himself in some

corporation of individuals, in a tithing or a hundred, or else to

place himself under the patronage of a chieftain. This bond was

so strong that the person who made the engagement could not

absent himself without the permission of the captain of his

corporation, or of his chieftain.

{36}

A foreigner even might not remain forty days on the English soil

without enrolling himself in this manner. This spirit of

subordination, this obligation of discipline, is one of the

principal characteristics of Anglo-Saxon legislation. All those

kings who, after long-continued disorders, were desirous to

reorganise society, exerted themselves to restore to vigorous

operation these laws of police and classification. They have been

attributed to Alfred, but he merely re-enacted them.

In my opinion, then, there is no legitimate ground for the

doctrine that the relation of the king's thanes to the inferior

thanes, was a feudal relation. It was the natural relationship

which necessarily arose, at the origin of society, between the

various degrees of power and wealth. The poor and the weak lived

under the surveillance and protection of those who were richer

and more powerful.

Freedom Of The Ceorls.

As I have already observed, the freemen were divided into two

classes,--thanes and ceorls. I shall now speak of the second

class. The ceorls were freemen who lived on the estates of the

thanes, and cultivated them. Their free condition has been called

in question, wrongly, as I think, for various reasons:

1st. The composition for the life of a ceorl was two hundred

shillings, and the characteristic mark of his liberty is that a

portion of this composition was paid to his family, and not to

the proprietor of the estate on which he lived; whereas, the

composition for the life of a slave was always paid to his

owner.

2nd. In the early times of the Saxon monarchy, the ceorls were

able to leave the land which they cultivated, whenever they

pleased; by degrees, however, they lost this liberty.

Ceorls and Slaves.

3rd. They had the right of bearing arms, and might go to war;

whereas, slaves did not possess this right. When Earl Godwin

attacked King Edward, he armed all the ceorls on his estates;

and, at the time of the Danish invasions, the ceorls fought in

defence of their country.

4th. They were also capable of possessing property, and when

they owned five hides of land they passed into the class of

thanes, as did also merchants who had made three voyages to

foreign lands. Hence the origin of the English yeomanry. The

yeoman is the freeholder, who, possessing an income of forty

shillings from land, votes at county elections, and may sit on

juries; _probus et legalis homo_.

{37}

5th. The ceorls were admitted to give evidence, only, it is

true, in matters which had reference to persons of their own

class: whereas slaves did not possess this right.

6th. Nearly all the ceorls were Saxons: we find in a canon of

the clergy of Northumberland, that a ceorl accused of a crime,

must bring forward as witnesses twelve ceorls and twelve

Britons.

The ceorls, then, were Saxons, and were distinguished from the

ancient inhabitants of the country. It is impossible that so

large a proportion of the conquerors should have fallen so

quickly into servitude. We may rather feel astonished that they

had no landed property in the country, which they had just

conquered. But Tacitus, with the accustomed truthfulness and

vigour of his pencil, makes us readily understand this

circumstance. In the forests of Germany, the barbarian warriors

always lived around their chieftains, who had to suggest and

command expeditions in times of activity, and to lodge and

support their men in times of repose. The same habits were kept

up after the conquest of a country; the property acquired was not

divided among all the victors. Every chieftain received a larger

or smaller division of land, and his followers settled with him

upon it. These men, accustomed to a wandering life, did not yet

set a high value upon landed property. Being still harassed,

moreover, by the ancient possessors of the soil, they found it

necessary to keep together, and unite in their own defence. They

formed species of camps around the dwelling of their chieftain,

whose possessions, according to the ancient Saxon laws, were

divided into two parts--_inlands_ and _outlands_. And

it is clear proof of the great difference then existing between

the ceorls and the slaves, that the latter alone cultivated the

land adjoining the habitation of the chief, while the ceorls, as

a natural consequence of their personal freedom, tilled the

outlands. This state of things, however, could not last long. A

large number of the ceorls fell into servitude, and assumed the

name of _villeins_ (villani); while others acquired lands

for themselves, and became the _soc-men_ of England.

{38}

Summing up what we have said, we perceive, in the state of

persons under the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, one great division into

freemen and slaves: and, among the freemen, another distinction

of thanes and ceorls. The thanes themselves are subdivided into

king's thanes and inferior thanes. The former are large landed

proprietors, the latter hold smaller estates; but both classes

possess equal rights. The ceorls are freemen, without landed

property, at least originally. Most of them fall into a state of

servitude. With regard to the slaves, we can say nothing except

that they were very numerous, and were divided into domestic

servants and rural serfs, or serfs of the glebe. The ancient

inhabitants of the country did not all fall into servitude; some

of them retained their possessions, and a law of King Ina

authorized them to appear before courts of justice. They might

even pass into the class of thanes if they possessed five hides

of land.

The thanes alone, to speak truly, played an active part in

history.

_Local Institutions._

Passing now to the institutions which connected and governed

these different classes, we find them to be of two kinds; central

institutions, entirely in the hands of the thanes, the object of

which was to secure the intervention of the nation in its own

government; and local institutions, which regulated those local

interests and guarantees which applied equally to all classes of

the community.

Origin Of Centralization.

At the origin of Anglo-Saxon society, there existed none but

local institutions. In these are contained the most important

guarantees for men whose life never goes beyond the boundaries of

their fields. At such epochs, men are as yet unacquainted with

great social life; and as the scope of institutions always

corresponds to the scope of the affairs and relations to which

they have reference, it follows that when relations are limited,

institutions are equally so. They continue local, because all

interests are local; there are very few, if any, general taxes

and affairs of public concern; the kings live, like their

subjects, on the income derived from their estates. The

proprietors care little about what is passing at a distance. The

idea of those great public agencies which regulate the affairs of

all men, does not belong to the origin of societies. By degrees,

in the midst of the chaos of the rising society, small

aggregations are formed which feel the want of alliance and union

with each other. They establish amongst themselves an

administration of justice, a public militia, a system of taxation

and police.

{39}

Soon, inequality of strength is displayed among neighbouring

aggregations. The strong tend to subjugate the weak, and usurp,

at first, the rights of taxation and military service. Thus,

political authority leaves the aggregations which first

instituted it, to take a wider range. This system of

centralization is not always imposed by force: it sometimes has a

more legitimate cause. In times of difficulty, a superior man

appears who makes his influence first felt in the society to

which he belongs. When attacked, the society intrusts him with

its defence. Neighbouring societies follow this example; soon the

powers granted in time of war are continued in time of peace, and

remain concentrated in a single hand. This victorious power

retains the right to levy men and money. These are the rights of

which the movement of centralization first deprives small local

societies; they retain for a longer period the rights of

administering justice, and establishing police regulations; they

may even retain them for a very long while, and England offers us

many such examples.

The preponderance of local institutions belongs to the infancy of

societies. Civilization incessantly tends to carry power still

higher; for power, when exercised from a greater distance, is

generally more disinterested, and more capable of taking justice

and reason for its sole guides. But frequently also, as it

ascends, power forgets its origin and final destiny; it forgets

that it was founded to maintain all rights, to respect all

liberties; and meeting with no further obstacles from the energy

of local liberties, it becomes transformed into despotism. This

result is not, however, necessary and fatal; society, while

labouring for the centralization of authority, may retain, or

regain at a later period, certain principles of liberty. When

central institutions have obtained too absolute a prevalence,

society begins to perceive the defects inherent in an edifice

which is detached, as it were, from the soil on which it stands.

Society then constructs upon itself the exact opposite of what it

built before; looks narrowly into the private and local interests

of which it is composed; duly appreciates their necessities and

rights; and, sending back to the different localities the

authorities which had been withdrawn therefrom, makes an

appropriate distribution of power.

{40}

_Effects Of The French Revolution._

When we study the institutions of France, we shall be presented

with the greatest and clearest example of this double history. We

shall perceive the great French society formed from a multitude

of little aggregations, and tending incessantly to the

concentration of the different powers contained within it. One

great revolution almost entirely destroyed every vestige of our

ancient local institutions, and led to the centralization of all

power. We now suffer from the excesses of this system; and having

returned to just sentiments of practical liberty, we are desirous

to restore to localities the life of which they have been

deprived, and to resuscitate local institutions, with the

concurrence and by the action of the central power itself. Great

oscillations like these constitute the social life of humanity,

and the history of civilization.

{41}

Lecture IV.

Local institutions among the Anglo-Saxons.

Divisions of territory; their origin and double object.

Internal police of these local associations.

Importance of the county-courts; their composition

and attributes.

Complex origin of the Jury.

Central institutions of the Anglo-Saxons.

The Wittenagemot; its composition, and the

principle on which it was based.

Increasing preponderance of the large landowners

in the Anglo-Saxon monarchy.

Local Institutions In England.

In my preceding lecture I pointed out the causes of the special

importance of local institutions, at that epoch in the

development of civilization which now occupies our attention. I

now proceed to examine into those institutions.

They were of two kinds. One class bound man to a superior,

established a certain right of man over man, a personal

pre-eminence and subordination, which were the source of mutual

duties. On the Continent, this hierarchy of persons became the

first principle of feudalism, which would perhaps have received

only a very imperfect development in England, had not William the

Conqueror transplanted it to that country in its complete state.

The other class of local institutions bound men of equal rank to

each other, regulated their mutual relations, and defined their

reciprocal rights and duties. The first class marked a

relationship of protection and dependence; the second summoned

all the inhabitants of the same territory, possessing the same

rights and the same obligations, to deliberate in common upon

affairs of common interest. These were the predominant

institutions of the Anglo-Saxons. Norman feudalism could not

entirely abolish them.

Divisions Of The Soil.

At this period, England was divided into tithings, hundreds, and

counties. This division has been attributed to King Alfred: he

seems to be the founder of all the legislation of this epoch,

because it all issues in a fixed and precise form from his reign;

but he found it already in existence, and did nothing more than

arrange it in a written code. He did not, then, originate this

division of territory, which appears to be based upon the

ecclesiastical partition of the country.

{42}

After their settlement in Great Britain, the Saxons did not

divide it into systematically determined portions, but adopted

what they found already established. The portions of territory

which were under the direction of the _decanus_, the

_decanus ruralis_, and the bishop, formed respectively the

tithing, the hundred, and the county. We must not, however,

suppose that these names correspond precisely to realities. The

tithings and hundreds were not all equal in extent of soil and

number of inhabitants. There were sixty-five hundreds in Sussex,

twenty-six in Yorkshire, and six in Lancashire. In the north of

England, the hundreds bore another name; they were called

_Wapentakes_. [Footnote 10] Here the ecclesiastical division

ceases, and a military circumscription prevailed, which still

subsists in some counties. An analogous circumscription has

continued to the present day in the Grisons, in Switzerland.

[Footnote 10: From _wapen_, weapons, and _tac_, a

touch, i. e. a shaking or striking of the arms; or from the

same _wapen_, and _tac_, a taking or receiving of

the vassal's arms by a new lord in token of subjection; or

because the people, in confirmation of union, touch the

weapon of their lord. See Blackstone, Introd., sec. 4. and

Holinshed, vol. v. p. 37.]

These divisions of the soil had a double object. On the one hand,

they formed the most certain means of insuring order and

discipline; and on the other hand, they supplied the inhabitants

with the most convenient method for transacting their public

business in common.

By a police regulation which I have already mentioned, every free

individual, above twelve years of age, was obliged to enrol

himself in a certain association, which he could not abandon

without the permission of the chief. A stranger might not remain

for more than two days with a friend, unless his host gave surety

for him, and at the end of forty days he was compelled to place

himself under the surveillance of some association. It is

remarkable that the details of these laws of classification and

subordination were almost the same in all those parts of the

Roman Empire occupied by the barbarians--in Gaul and Spain, as

well as in England. When one of the members of a special

association had committed a crime, the association was obliged to

bring him to trial. This point has given rise to much discussion

among learned men.

{43}

The County Courts.

Some have maintained that the association was bail for its

members, not only for their appearance before the court of

justice, but also for the crime which they might have committed.

I think that every Anglo-Saxon association was bound only to

bring the culprit to trial. If he had made his escape, the

association had to prove, sometimes by twelve and sometimes by

thirty witnesses, that it knew nothing of his whereabouts; and it

was fined only when it could not produce witnesses to prove that

it had not abetted his escape. This obligation of every local

corporation to pay for its guilty and absent members, existed

also in Gaul at this time. The Gallic corporation was moreover

answerable for the execution of the sentence: I do not think this

was the case in England, where it was bound only to bring the

culprit to trial.

The second object of this division of the land was to appoint

centres of union, where the inhabitants might discuss matters of

common interest. In every county, and in every subdivision of a

county, the landowners held meetings, at which they deliberated

upon the affairs of the local association to which they belonged.

Originally, therefore, there existed not only county-courts, but

also courts of hundred and courts of tithing, which frequently

met. By degrees, as the circle of the interests of these little

associations continually tended to become larger, the courts of

tithing fell into desuetude. The courts of hundred survived for a

longer period, and even now retain some shadow of existence. The

Saxons, however, dispersed over the country, and busied with

their warlike and agricultural labours, gradually lost the habit

of attending these meetings. Having scarcely any written rights

to defend, and being seldom disturbed in their dwellings, they

lived without anxiety for a liberty which was never called in

question. The principal guarantee of the liberty of individuals

at that time was their isolation: the active surveillance which

it requires, when government exercises a direct and frequent

influence upon the governed, would have been to them a useless

and fatiguing burden. It devolved upon the kings to compel them,

as it were, to keep up their old institutions. Athelstane

ordained that the county-courts should meet once in every three

months. Few persons attended them, and it became necessary to

grant further indulgence. The county-courts were allowed to

assemble only twice a year.

{44}

All holders of land were entitled to attend their meetings. The

matters discussed were the internal administration of the county,

the maintenance of roads and bridges, the keeping in repair of

the forts which the Romans had constructed to defend the country

against the invasions of the Picts and Scots, and which were

still used for the same purpose. All public business was

transacted in the county-court, under the presidency of the

_alderman_. At its meetings, military forces were levied,

justice was administered, and ecclesiastical affairs were treated

of. All public acts, sales, manumissions, wills, were conducted

before it, and the publicity of the assembly gave an authentic

character to these deeds. Every act, however, was authenticated

by a certain number of witnesses, and the deeds were afterwards

transcribed and intercalated in the parish Bible.

_Origin of the Jury._

In these meetings, also, we discern the origin of the

_Jury_. When there was a trial to be decided, the alderman

sent a number of freemen belonging to the same class as the

contending parties, to the place where the dispute had occurred,

in order to learn the facts of the case. These men were called

_assessors_, and when they returned to the county-court,

furnished with the necessary information, they naturally became

the judges in the case which they had investigated. The

contending parties publicly pleaded their own cause, and were

obliged to prove their right by witnesses, _compurgatores_.

It has been a question much debated whether the institution of

the jury arose from these witnesses, or from the assessors. In my

opinion, it was the product of neither exclusively, but of both

combined. The establishment of a great institution has nearly

always something complex about it. The jury came into existence

in some measure spontaneously, from the amalgamation of the

different classes of persons who combined to investigate and

decide the case. Under the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, it was not a

very clearly defined institution. It was not universally in

practice, its rules were frequently infringed upon: and Alfred,

who was the restorer of the ancient institutions of the country,

hanged an alderman who had given judgment without the

co-operation of his assessors.

{45}

Appointment Of Magistrates.

The presidents of these different territorial subdivisions, of

the county-courts, the hundred-courts, and the tithing-courts,

were at first elected by the landowners. I do not suppose the

choice was made by individual votes, but rather by a tacit

consent given to the personal influence of certain men.

Sometimes, however, to repair long disorders, and destroy the

injurious consequences of this influence, the central authority

interfered in the appointment of these magistrates. When Alfred

had vanquished the Danes, he was desirous to reform the abuses

which the troubles of war had introduced into the administration

of justice; he assumed the right of choosing the

_centenarii_ and tithing-men, and this novelty was so far

from being considered an usurpation of the rights of the nation,

that contemporary historians praise the monarch for having given

the people such good magistrates. The systematic conflict of the

rulers with the ruled had not yet commenced; the limits of their

respective rights and duties were neither fixed nor recognised,

and as power was not yet extravagant in its exactions, the people

did not feel their rights attacked; necessity, or temporary

utility, were the tests which decided the value of a measure. We

do not find that the kings who succeeded Alfred retained this

right of appointment. Under Edward the Confessor, the

county-magistrates were chosen by the landowners. The conquest of

William the Norman destroyed, in great measure, these free

customs. The alderman, the centenarius, and the tithing-man,

disappeared before the feudal lords, or became feudal lords

themselves. The assemblies of freemen, however, still retained

the right of appointing their respective officers. The sheriff

was substituted for the alderman, the centenarius merged in the

high-constable, and the petty-constable took the place of the

tithing-man. These were the officers of the people,--the

municipal officers.

Such is a summary of the local institutions which, under the

Anglo-Saxon monarchy, maintained the internal order of the state,

and constituted the safeguards of public liberty. Vigorous

institutions were they, which feudalism could not overthrow, and

which produced, at a later period, representative government in

England, although they did not contain, as you will presently

see, the true principle of representative government.

{46}

The Wittenagemot.

Let us now pass to central institutions. Of these, there were two

among the Anglo-Saxons: the national assembly, and the royal

office.

Tacitus has described to you the general assemblies of the

ancient Germans. At those meetings, nothing was decided without

the consent of every freeman. Each individual possessed and

exercised his own personal rights and influence. The influence of

the chiefs was great. The leaders of their men in war, they

became, when their conquest was completed, the principal, indeed

almost the sole, landed proprietors, and thus they retained among

themselves, although the others were not legally excluded, the

practice of forming national assemblies. Each kingdom of the

Saxon Heptarchy had its own, and it is probable that the thanes,

or landowners, enforced the adoption and execution of the

resolutions of this assembly, among the ceorls who dwelt on their

estates. When the Heptarchy was combined into a single kingdom,

one general assembly alone was established; and as its meetings

were held in a central locality, at a great distance from many

parts of the realm, the large proprietors were the only persons

who were able to attend regularly. This assembly was called the

_Wittenagemot_, or the assembly of the wise men. From

historical documents, we learn that it was composed of bishops,

abbots, abbesses, dukes, and earls; but we also find these words,

the vagueness of which has given rise to very different

explanations: "such a decision was taken _coram proceribus

aliorumque fidelium infinitâ multitudine._" Some learned men,

who are partisans of absolute power, have inferred from this that

it existed at the very origin of society; and they assert that

the name of the assembly, _Wittenagemot_, was in itself

sufficient to prove that it was composed only of the judges and

delegates of the sovereign. Other writers, who are zealous

advocates of the rights of the people, have held the opinion that

this multitude of persons present were the representatives of the

various counties and boroughs. I think that both these systems

are false. As regards the first, it is evident that there was no

distinct class of judges at this period; public functionaries

were, not then classified as they are now, and the expression

_wise men_ would apply equally to all those whose condition

raised them above the 'vulgar herd.' With reference to the second

system, I must say that no idea of representation was entertained

at that period.

{47}

Its Members.

Whoever was entitled to attend the assembly went thither, and

went in person. No proxies were allowed. No one was permitted to

enter the assembly in any name but his own. When we come to treat

of the principles of representative government, we shall see that

the formation of the ancient Germanic assemblies was based upon

the principles of individual right, and of the sovereignty of the

multitude,--principles from which representative government did

not take its origin. Besides, the towns at this period were in so

miserable a condition, that it was impossible for them to appoint

representatives. York, the second city in England, contained

fourteen hundred and eighteen families, and Bath sixty-four. A

law of King Athelstane declares that no one entered, or could

enter, the assembly, except upon his own account; every

proprietor possessing five hides of land, it says, and every

merchant who has made three voyages to foreign countries, shall

be numbered among the thanes, and be admitted as such into the

Wittenagemot. The inequality of conditions, however, continued to

increase. Those national assemblies, in which, originally, all

freemen were entitled to sit, soon became, as you have seen,

restricted to landed proprietors. By-and-bye, as power became

centralized, and predominant influences gained greater strength,

the small proprietors ceased to use a right which had lost all

value to them, and the large landowners remained the undisputed

masters of the field. The disproportion between the two classes

was so great, that a contest was impossible. As each man sat in

his own name, each man brought his own personal influence and

private interests with him. The general assembly became an arena

for individual disputes. This was the necessary consequence of a

principle, which, by summoning all persons to exercise the same

right, placed inequalities in that position which was most

favourable to the development of their power and egotism. It is

the work of a widely different principle to seek out among the

masses the persons best fitted to represent them, to send these

individuals to the central assembly to provide for the safety of

all rights in the name of justice, and thus to prevent the evil

consequences which must result from the natural or social

inequality of mankind, by creating a factitious, but just,

equality among their representatives, which leaves them only the

legitimate influence of their talents and character.

{48}

Character of The Anglo-Saxon Monarchy.

But the foundation of such a government is the work of ages.

Nations, in their infancy, cannot possess it. The Anglo-Saxon

monarchy was a continual conflict of individual interests, which

was carried on in the Wittenagemot, as well as elsewhere, and its

general tendency was to the continually increasing preponderance

of large landed property.

{49}

Lecture V.

The Wittenagemot; its business and power.

Method of its convocation.

Vicissitudes of its character and importance.

The kingly office among the Anglo-Saxons.

Extent and progress of the royal power.

Business Of The Wittenagemot.

We have already considered the origin and composition of the

Wittenagemot, or general assembly of the Anglo-Saxons, it now

remains for us to speak of its attributes and method of

convocation.

In the infancy of society, everything is confused and uncertain;

there is as yet no fixed and precise line of demarcation between

the different powers in a state; and thus we find that the

attributes of the Wittenagemot were rather indefinite. There was

no settled boundary at which its power ceased, and that of the

monarchy commenced; both united to transact all the business of

the nation, and, if we would ascertain the part actually taken by

the Wittenagemot in this business, we must inquire of history

what were its real attributes.

The defence of the kingdom was the chief business of the national

assemblies. We must not suppose that the obligation of military

service is coeval only with feudalism; independently of every

feudal bond, it was an obligation imposed on every freeman in the

nation, just as at the present day every French citizen is bound

to present himself for conscription. The Wittenagemot ordered

levies of the landowners, who, in their turn, convoked the

freemen resident on their estates.

The Wittenagemot also imposed taxes; at that period, however,

there were hardly any public taxes; the first was levied in

consequence of the Danish invasion, and the law which imposed it

expressly states that it received the consent of all the members

present in the Wittenagemot.

{50}

The county-courts, as we have seen, provided for the maintenance

of the public roads, bridges, and forts. We learn from the

deliberations of the Anglo-Saxon national assembly, that such

matters fell under its cognizance also.

As the right of coining money did not belong exclusively to the

king, but was also possessed by the church and by many powerful

subjects, the Wittenagemot had the oversight of this matter, and

prevented the debasement of the coinage.

We also find it ratifying or annulling those acts of

county-courts which had reference not to private matters, but to

affairs of general importance.

The principle of the responsibility of the agents of power was

not more clearly and firmly established in the Anglo-Saxon

monarchy than the other great principles of free government; but

it was, nevertheless, confusedly practised. A vague feeling of

justice pervaded these national assemblies; they repressed great

abuses, but frequently punished injustice by injustice.

Oversight Of The Royal Domain.

The Wittenagemot in England possessed a power which was not

generally exercised by corresponding assemblies on the Continent;

it had the oversight of the royal domain. Originally, the kings

lived, like other landowners, on the income derived from their

own private estates. Their property was a private domain, which

they managed as they pleased. As time rolled on, this domain

became very largely augmented by confiscations; but the kings,

compelled to defend their tottering authority from the frequent

attacks to which it was subjected, were incessantly diminishing

their estates by gifts to powerful and formidable chiefs.

Frequently, also, when they were strong, they resumed the gifts

which necessity had extorted from them. The little reliance to be

placed upon these purely royal donations, unless they were

ratified by the consent of the national assembly; and the

knowledge that, if the king were permitted these forced

dilapidations of his own domains, the Wittenagemot would one day

be obliged to repair them, and compensate the monarch for the

loss of his private estates,--were the reasons which led to the

interference of the national assembly in the administration of

the royal domain. In France, this domain did not fall so soon

under the influence of the national assemblies, but remained for

a much longer period the private property of the kings.

{51}

Direction Of Ecclesiastical Affairs.

One of the most important attributes of the Wittenagemot was the

direction of ecclesiastical affairs. The abbots and bishops,

indeed all the high clergy, were members of this assembly. In

France, although the clergy formed a part of the national

assemblies, they treated of their own affairs as a separate body,

and communicated directly with the king. In England,

ecclesiastical matters, like all other business, were discussed

in the general assembly. For instance, when missionaries from

Rome came to invite the kings of the Heptarchy to embrace the

Christian religion, the kings replied that they must ask the

consent of the Wittenagemot. In Sweden, the king, who had already

become a convert himself, proposed to the assembled Diet to adopt

Christianity. The Diet sanctioned the new religion, but retained

the old creed, and this simultaneous practice of the two

religions lasted for a considerable time. The Wittenagemot had

not always to discuss such important matters as the conversion of

the nation; it appointed bishops, and ordained or sanctioned the

foundation of abbeys and monasteries.

The last business of the Anglo-Saxon national assembly was to

receive complaints and petitions in denunciation of abuses. It

thus became sometimes a judicial court, adjudicating on the

appeals of large landowners; but it seldom appears in this

character: it was especially a political assembly, whilst, on the

Continent, the national assembly frequently acted as a judicial

tribunal.

I have now pointed out the various functions of the Wittenagemot,

and you have been able, from the acts of that assembly, to form a

tolerably accurate idea of it. As regards its convocation,

originally its meetings were frequent, but in order not to

fatigue its members too much, it became necessary to reduce the

meetings to two, held in spring and autumn, as on the Continent.

The right of convoking the Wittenagemot became, ere long, one of

the prerogatives of the crown. This abandonment of so important a

privilege is very characteristic of an age in which political

prudence is unknown, and distrust is manifested only at rare

intervals, and then by revolt. It seemed natural that the king,

the direct centre of all the interests and necessities of the

nation, should convoke the assembly for exigencies with which he

was better acquainted than any other person; at his death, the

large landowners assembled spontaneously, to deliberate on a

change of dynasty or the arrangement of the succession.

{52}

The inviolability of the members of the Wittenagemot was

recognized from the day on which they set out to attend the

assembly, till the day on which they returned home again,

provided they were not notorious brigands.

Character Of The Wittenagemot.

Summing up what I have said, the general assembly of the

Anglo-Saxons, as of most of the German nations, was, in Germany,

composed of every freeman; after the conquest, it consisted only

of the landowners; and, towards the end of the monarchy, it was

attended by none but the most wealthy proprietors. Each man came

in his own right, and on his own behalf; according to a charter

of King Athelstane, he might send a proxy in his place. This

irrefragable mark of individual right still exists in England. In

the House of Peers, every peer may vote by proxy and in his own

name. It is from the Wittenagemot, in this last phase of its

existence, and from the rights of suzerainty which Norman

feudalism conferred on the king over the great barons, who held

their titles directly from him, that the English House of Peers,

as it now exists, derives its origin. In the Wittenagemot of the

last age of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, we can discern neither of

the two elements which composed the House of Commons at a later

period. The towns had hardly any existence, and could not,

therefore, send deputies: the counties had never sent any. The

Wittenagemot was only an assembly of the powerful men of the

state, who came on their own account, and in their own personal

right. Most other persons neglected rights which were too

difficult for them to exercise, and the real impotence of which

they felt; by neglecting to exercise them, they eventually lost

them; and when the exigencies of liberty occurred to agitate a

more advanced and less contented state of society, a new labour

was necessary to restore to the citizens, rights which they had

allowed to perish, through the want of necessity and capacity.

{53}

The Kingly Office.

The second of the central institutions of the Anglo-Saxons, was

the kingly office. An important fact has distinguished the

formation of all states of Germanic origin, and this is, the

speedy establishment of hereditary monarchy,--which was the

dominant character of this institution at this period, whatever

mixture of election may be discerned therein. The causes of this

are simple. In warlike tribes, there is, in war at least, a

single chieftain; the man of greatest valour and largest

experience, says to his comrades, "Come with me--I will lead you

where you may obtain rich booty;" his proposition is accepted,

and by common consent he becomes the leader of the expedition.

Thus, at the origin of society, power is not conferred; he who is

able to do so, assumes it by the consent of the others. There is

no election properly so called, but only a recognition of

authority. The leader who has conducted one or more fortunate

expeditions, obtains great importance by success; his influence

increases with time, and he hands down to his family the

influence and power which he has acquired. This family, thus

invested with an actual superiority, gains a natural habit of

command, which the others soon grow accustomed to acknowledge.

Among the Germans, moreover, the idea of religious filiation

contributed powerfully to the establishment of hereditary

monarchy. It was almost a national duty to choose kings from the

divine race; and all the royal families were descendants of Odin.

Thus hereditary monarchy prevailed among these peoples; but

choice among the members of the royal family long existed. It was

indispensably necessary that the king should be a capable man, in

a state of society in which men were as yet ignorant of the

artificial means which supply the deficiencies of royal

incapacity. Thus Alfred himself did not simply found his right to

the throne on a will of his father, and an agreement with his

brother; but he based it especially upon the consent of all the

large proprietors of the kingdom of Wessex. Force sometimes gave

severe checks to hereditary right; but the usurpation of the

throne was always associated with the idea of the violation of a

right, and the usurpers invariably strove to atone for this

violation, by marriage with one of the legitimate race.

{54}

Duties Of The Kings.