The invasion of William of Normandy led to results which have been
represented by some writers as having been the most momentous in English
history. I do not wish in any way to depreciate their views, but it
seems to me not to have been so disastrous to existing institutions, as
the Scandinavian invasion, which completely submerged all former usages.
No trace of Roman occupation survived the advent of the ANGLO-SAXONs;
the population was reduced to and remained in the position of serfs,
whereas the Norman invasion preserved the existing institutions of the
nation, and subsequent changes were an outgrowth thereof.
When Edward the Confessor, the last descendant of Cedric, was on
his deathbed, he declared Harold to be his successor, but William of
Normandy claimed the throne under a previous will of the same monarch.
He asked for the assistance of his own nobles and people in the
enterprise, but they refused at first, on the ground that their feudal
compact only required them to join in the defence of their country,
and did not coerce them into affording him aid in a completely new
enterprise; and it was only by promising to compensate them out of the
spoils that he could secure their co-operation. A list of the number
of ships supplied by each Norman chieftain appears in Lord Lyttleton's
"History of Henry III." vol. i., appendix.
I need hardly remind you that the settlers in Normandy were from Norway,
or that they had been expelled from their native land in consequence of
their efforts to subvert its institutions, and to make the descent of
land hereditary, instead of being divisible among all the sons of the
former owner. Nor need I relate how they won and held the fair provinces
of northern France--whether as a fief of the French Crown or not, is an
open question. But I should wish you to bear in mind their affinity to
the ANGLO-SAXONs, to the Danes, and to the Norwegians, the family of Sea
Robbers, whose ravages extended along the coasts of Europe as far
south as Gibraltar, and, as some allege, along the Mediterranean. Some
questions have been raised as to the means of transport of the Saxons,
the Jutes, and the Angles, but they were fully as extensive as those by
which Rollo invaded France or William invaded England.
William strengthened his claim to the throne by his military success,
and by a form of election, for which there were many previous
precedents. Those who called upon him to ascend it alleged "that they
had always been ruled by legal power, and desired to follow in that
respect the example of their ancestors, and they knew of no one more
worthy than himself to hold the reins of government."
His alleged title to the crown, sanctioned by success and confirmed
by election, enabled him, in conformity with existing institutions, to
seize upon the lands of Harold and his adherents, and to grant them as
rewards to his followers. Such confiscation and gifts were entirely in
accord with existing usages, and the great alteration which took place
in the principal fiefs was more a change of persons than of law. A large
body of the aboriginal people had been, and continued to be, serfs or
villeins; while the mass of the FREEMEN (LIBERI HOMINES) remained in
possession of their holdings.
It may not be out of place here to say a few words about this important
class, which is in reality the backbone of the British constitution;
it was the mainstay of the ANGLO-SAXON monarchy; it lost its influence
during the civil wars of the Plantagenets, but reasserted its power
under Cromwell. Dr. Robertson thus draws the line between them and the
vassals:
"In the same manner Liber homo is commonly opposed to Vassus or
Vassalus, the former denoting an allodial proprietor, the latter one who
held of a superior. These FREEMEN were under an obligation to serve
the state, and this duty was considered so sacred that FREEMEN were
prohibited from entering into holy orders, unless they obtained the
consent of the sovereign."
De Lolme, chap. i., sec. 5, says:
"The Liber homo, or FREEMAN, has existed in this country from the
earliest periods, as well as of authentic as of traditionary history,
entitled to that station in society as one of his constitutional rights,
as being descended from free parents in contradistinction to 'villains,'
which should be borne in remembrance, because the term 'FREEMAN' has
been, in modern times, perverted from its constitutional signification
without any statutable authority." The LIBERI HOMINES are so described
in the Doomsday Book. They were the only men of honor, faith, trust,
and reputation in the kingdom; and from among such of these as were not
barons, the knights did choose jurymen, served on juries themselves,
bare offices, and dispatched country business. Many of the LIBERI
HOMINES held of the king in capite, and several were freeholders of
other persons in military service. Their rights were recognized and
guarded by the 55th William I.; [Footnote: "LV.--De Chartilari seu
Feudorum jure et Ingenuorum immunitate. Volumus etiam ac firmiter
praecipimus et concedimus ut omnes LIBERI HOMINES totius Monarchiae
regni nostri praedicti habeant et teneant terras suas et possessiones
suas bene et in pace, liberi ab omni, exactione iniusta et ab omni
Tallagio: Ita quod nihil ab eis exigatur vel capiatur nisi servicium
suum liberum quod de iure nobis facere debent et facere tenentur
et prout statutum est eis et illis a nobis datum et concessum iure
haereditario imperpetuum per commune consilium totius regni nostri
praeicti."] it is entitled:
"CONCERNING CHEUTILAR OR FEUDAL RIGHTS, AND THE IMMUNITY OF FREEMEN.
"We will also, and strictly, enjoin and concede that all FREEMEN (LIBERI
HOMINES) of our whole kingdom aforesaid, have and hold their land and
possessions well and in peace, free from every unjust exaction and from
Tallage, so that nothing be exacted or taken from them except their free
service, which of right they ought to do to us and are bound to do, and
according as it was appointed (statutum) to them, and given to them by
us, and conceded by hereditary right for ever, by the common council
(FOLC-GEMOT} of our whole realm aforesaid."
These FREEMEN were not created by the Norman Conquest, they existed
prior thereto; and the laws, of which this is one, are declared to be
the laws of Edward the Confessor, which William re-enacted. Selden, in
"The Laws and Government of England," p. 34, speaks of this law as the
first Magna Charta. He says:
"Lastly, the one law of the kings, which may be called the first MAGNA
CHARTA in the Norman times (55 William I.), by which the king reserved
to himself, from the FREEMEN of this kingdom, nothing but their free
service, in the conclusion saith that their lands were thus granted to
them in inheritance of the king by the COMMON COUNCIL (FOLC-GEMOT) of
the whole kingdom; and so asserts, in one sentence, the liberty of the
FREEMEN, and of the representative body of the kingdom."
He further adds:
"The freedom of an ENGLISHMAN consisteth of three particulars: first, in
OWNERSHIP; second, in VOTING ANY LAW, whereby ownership is maintained;
and, thirdly, in having an influence upon the JUDICIARY POWER that must
apply the law. Now the English, under the Normans, enjoyed all this
freedom with each man's own particular, besides what they had in bodies
aggregate. This was the meaning of the Normans, and they published the
same to the world in a fundamental law, whereby is granted that all
FREEMEN shall have and hold their lands and possessions in hereditary
right for ever; and by this they being secured from forfeiture, they are
further saved from all wrong by the same law, which provideth that they
shall hold them well or quietly, and in peace, free from all unjust tax,
and from all Tallage, so as nothing shall be exacted nor taken but their
free service, which, by right, they are bound to perform."
This is expounded in the law of Henry I., cap. 4, to mean that no
tribute or tax shall be taken but what was due in the Confessor's time,
and Edward II. was sworn to observe the laws of the Confessor.
The nation was not immediately settled. Rebellions arose either from the
oppression of the invaders or the restlessness of the conquered; and,
as each outburst was put down by force, there were new lands to be
distributed among the adherents of the monarch; ultimately there were
about 700 chief tenants holding IN CAPITE, but the nation was divided
into 60,215 knights' fees, of which the Church held 28,115. The king
retained in his own hands 1422 manors, besides a great number of
forests, parks, chases, farms, and houses, in all parts of the kingdom;
and his followers received very large holdings.
Among the Saxon families who retained their land was one named
Shobington in Bucks. Hearing that the Norman lord was coming to whom
the estate had been gifted by the king, the head of the house armed his
servants and tenants, preparing to do battle for his rights; he cast up
works, which remain to this day in grassy mounds, marking the sward of
the park, and established himself behind them to await the despoiler's
onset. It was the period when hundreds of herds of wild cattle roamed
the forest lands of Britain, and, failing horses, the Shobingtons
collected a number of bulls, rode forth on them, and routed the Normans,
unused to such cavalry. William heard of the defeat, and conceived a
respect for the brave man who had caused it; he sent a herald with a
safe conduct to the chief, Shobington, desiring to speak with him. Not
many days after, came to court eight stalwart men riding upon bulls, the
father and seven sons. "If thou wilt leave me my lands, O king," said
the old man, "I will serve thee faithfully as I did the dead Harold."
Whereupon the Conqueror confirmed him in his ownership, and named the
family Bullstrode, instead of Shobington.
Sir Martin Wright, in his "Treatise on Tenures," published in 1730, p.
61, remarks:
"Though it is true that the possessions of the Normans were of a sudden
very great, and that they received most of them from the hands of
William I., yet it does not follow that the king took all the lands of
England out of the hands of their several owners, claiming them as
his spoils of war, or as a parcel of a conquered country; but, on the
contrary, it appears pretty plain from the history of those times that
the king either had or pretended title to the crown, and that his
title, real or pretended, was established by the death of Harold,
which amounted to an unquestionable judgment in his favor. He did not
therefore treat his opposers as enemies, but as traitors, agreeably to
the known laws of the kingdom which subjected traitors not only to the
loss of life but of all their possessions."
He adds (p. 63):
"As William I. did not claim to possess himself of the lands of
England as the spoils of conquest, so neither did he tyrannically and
arbitrarily subject them to feudal dependence; but, as the fedual law
was at that time the prevailing law of Europe, William I., who had
always governed by this policy, might probably recommend it to our
ancestors as the most obvious and ready way to put them upon a footing
with their neighbors, and to secure the nation against any future
attempts from them. We accordingly find among the laws of William I. a
law enacting feudal law itself, not EO NOMINE, but in effect, inasmuch
as it requires from all persons the same engagements to, and introduces
the same dependence upon, the king as supreme lord of all the lands of
England, as were supposed to be due to a supreme lord by the feudal law.
The law I mean is the LII. law of William I."
This view is adopted by Sir William Blackstone, who writes (vol. ii., p.
47):
"From the prodicious slaughter of the English nobility at the battle
of Hastings, and the fruitless insurrection of those who survived, such
numerous forfeitures had accrued that he (William) was able to reward
his Norman followers with very large and extensive possessions, which
gave a handle to monkish historians, and such as have implicitly
followed them to represent him as having by the right of the sword,
seized upon all the lands of England, and dealt them out again to his
own favorites--a supposition grounded upon a mistaken sense of the
word conquest, which in its feudal acceptation signifies no more
than acquisition, and this has led many hasty writers into a strange
historical mistake, and one which, upon the slightest examination, will
be found to be most untrue.
"We learn from a Saxon chronicle (A.D. 1085), that in the nineteenth
year of King William's reign, an invasion was apprehended from Denmark;
and the military constitution of the Saxons being then laid aside, and
no other introduced in its stead, the kingdom was wholly defenceless;
which occasioned the king to bring over a large army of Normans and
Britons who were quartered upon, and greatly oppressed, the people. This
apparent weakness, together with the grievances occasioned by a foreign
force, might co-operate with the king's remonstrance, and better incline
the nobility to listen to his proposals for putting them in a position
of defence. For, as soon as the danger was over, the king held a
great council to inquire into the state of the nation, the immediate
consequence of which was the compiling of the great survey called the
Doomsday Book, which was finished the next year; and in the end of that
very year (1086) the king was attended by all his nobility at Sarum,
where the principal landholders submitted their lands to the yoke of
military tenure, and became the king's vassals, and did homage and
fealty to his person."
Mr. Henry Hallam writes:
"One innovation made by William upon the feudal law is very deserving of
attention. By the leading principle of feuds, an oath of fealty was due
from the vassal to the lord of whom he immediately held the land, and
no other. The King of France long after this period had no feudal, and
scarcely any royal, authority over the tenants of his own vassals; but
William received at Salisbury, in 1085, the fealty of all landholders in
England, both those who held in chief and their tenants, thus breaking
in upon the feudal compact in its most essential attribute--the
exclusive dependence of a VASSAL upon his lord; and this may be reckoned
among the several causes which prevented the continental notions of
independence upon the Crown from ever taking root among the English
aristocracy."
A more recent writer, Mr. FREEMAN ("History of the Norman Conquest,"
published in 1871, vol. iv., p. 695), repeats the same idea, though
not exactly in the same words. After describing the assemblage which
encamped in the plains around Salisbury, he says:
"In this great meeting a decree was passed, which is one of the most
memorable pieces of legislation in the whole history of England. In
other lands where military tenure existed, it was beginning to be held
that he who plighted his faith to a lord, who was the man of the king,
was the man of that lord only, and did not become the man of the king
himself. It was beginning to be held that if such a man followed his
immediate lord to battle against the common sovereign, the lord might
draw on himself the guilt of treason, but the men that followed him
would be guiltless. William himself would have been amazed if any vassal
of his had refused to draw his sword in a war with France on the score
of duty toward an over-lord. But in England, at all events, William
was determined to be full king over the whole land, to be immediate
sovereign and immediate lord of every man. A statute was passed that
every FREEMAN in the realm should take the oath of fealty to King
William."
Mr. FREEMAN quotes Stubbs's "Select Charters," p. 80, as his authority.
Stubbs gives the text of that charter, with ten others. He says: "These
charters are from 'Textus Roffensis,' a manuscript written during the
reign of Henry I.; it contains the sum and substance of all the legal
enactments made by the Conqueror independent of his confirmation of the
earlier laws." It is as follows: "Statuimus etiam ut OMNIS LIBER HOMO
feodere et sacramento affirmet, quod intra et extra Angliam Willelmo
regi fideles esse volunt, terras et honorem illius omni fidelitate cum
eo servare et eum contra inimicos defendere."
It will be perceived that Mr. Hallam reads LIBER HOMO as "vassal." Mr.
FREEMAN reads them as "FREEMAN," while the older authority, Sir Martin
Wright, says: "I have translated the words LIBERI HOMINES, 'owners of
land,' because the sense agrees best with the tenor of the law."
The views of writers of so much eminence as Sir Martin Wright, Sir
William Blackstone, Mr. Henry Hallam, and Mr. FREEMAN, are entitled to
the greatest respect and consideration, and it is with much diffidence I
venture to differ from them. The three older writers appear to have had
before them the LII of William I., the latter the alleged charter
found in the "Textus Roffensis;" but as they are almost identical in
expression, I treat the latter as a copy of the former, and I do not
think it bears out the interpretation sought to be put upon it--that it
altered either the feudalism of England, or the relation of the vassal
to his lord; and it must be borne in mind that not only did William
derive his title to the crown from Edward the Confessor, but he
preserved the apparent continuity, and re-enacted the laws of
his predecessor. Wilkins' "Laws of the ANGLO-SAXONs and Normans,"
republished in 1840 by the Record Commissioners, gives the following
introduction:
"Here begin the laws of Edward, the glorious king of England.
"After the fourth year of the succession to the kingdom of William of
this land, that is England, he ordered all the English noble and wise
men and acquainted with the law, through the whole country, to be
summoned before his council of barons, in order to be acquainted with
their customs, Having therefore selected from all the counties twelve,
they were sworn solemnly to proceed as diligently as they might to write
their laws and customs, nothing omitting, nothing adding, and nothing
changing."
Then follow the laws, thirty-nine in number, thus showing the continuity
of system, and proving that William imposed upon his Norman followers
the laws of the ANGLO-SAXONs. They do not include the LII. William
I., to which I shall refer hereafter. I may, however, observe that the
demonstration at Salisbury was not of a legislative character; and that
it was held in conformity with ANGLO-SAXON usages. If, according to
Stubbs, the ordinance was a charter, it would proceed from the king
alone. The idea involved in the statements of Sir Martin Wright, Mr.
Hallam, and Mr. FREEMAN, that the VASSAL OF A LORD was then called on
to swear allegiance to the KING, and that it altered the feudal bond in
England, is not supported by the oath of vassalage. In swearing fealty,
the vassal knelt, placed his hands between those of his lord's, and
swore:
"I become your man from this day forward, of life and limb, and of
earthly worship, and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you
faith for the tenements at that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith
that I owe unto our Sovereign Lord the King."
This shows that it was unnecessary to call vassals to Salisbury to
swear allegiance. The assemblage was of the same nature and character as
previous meetings. It was composed of the LIBERI HOMINES, the FREEMEN,
described by the learned John Selden (ante, p. 10), and by Dr. Robertson
and De Lolme (ante, pp. 12, 13).
But there is evidence of a much stronger character, which of itself
refutes the views of these writers, and shows that the Norman system,
at least during the reign of William I., was a continuation of that
existing previous to his succession to the throne; and that the meeting
at Salisbury, so graphically portrayed, did not effect that radical
change in the position of English landholders which has been stated.
I refer to the works of EADMERUS; he was a monk of Canterbury who
was appointed Bishop of St. Andrews, and declined or resigned
the appointment because the King of Scotland refused to allow his
consecration by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His history includes the
reigns of William I., William II., and Henry I., from 1066 to 1122, and
he gives, at page 173, the laws of Edward the Confessor, which William
I. gave to England; they number seventy-one, including the LII. law
quoted by Sir Martin Wright. The introduction to these laws is in Latin
and Norman-French, and is as follows:
"These are the laws and customs which King William granted to the whole
people of England after he had conquered the land, and they are those
which KING EDWARD HIS PREDECESSOR observed before him."
[Footnote: The laws of William are given in a work entitled
"Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historia Novorum," etc. It
includes the reigns of William I. and II., and Henry I.,
from 1066 to 1122, and is edited by John Selden. Page 173
has the following:
"Hae sunt Leges et Consuetudines quas Willielmus Rex
concessit universo Populo Angliae post subactam terram.
Eaedum sunt quas Edwardus Rex cognatus ejus obscruauit ante
eum.
"Ces sont les leis et les Custums que le Rui people de
Engleterre apres le Conquest de le Terre. Ice les meismes
que le Rui Edward sun Cosin tuit devant lui.
"LII.
"De fide et obsequio erga Regnum.
"Statuimus etiam ut omnes liiben homines foedere et
sacramento affirment quod intra et extra universum regnum
Anglias (quod olim vocabatur regnum Britanniae) Willielmo
suo domino fideles esse volunt, terras et honores illins
fidelitate ubique servare cum eo et contra inimicos et
alienigonas defendere."]
This simple statement gets rid of the theory of Sir Martin Wright, of
Sir William Blackstone, of Mr. Hallam, and of Mr. FREEMAN, that William
introduced a new system, and that he did so either as a new feudal law
or as an amendment upon the existing feudalism. The LII. law, quoted by
Wright, is as follows:
"We have decreed that all FREE MEN should affirm on oath, that both
within and without the whole kingdom of England (which is called
Britain) they desire to be faithful to William their lord, and
everywhere preserve unto him his land and honors with fidelity, and
defend them against all enemies and strangers."
Eadmerus, who wrote in the reign of Henry I., gives the LII. William I.
as a confirmatory law. The charter given by Stubbs is a contraction
of the law given by Eadmerus. The former uses the words OMNES LIBERI
HOMINES; the latter, the words OMNIS LIBERI HOMO. Those interested can
compare them, as I shall give the text of each side by side.
Since the paper was read, I have met with the following passage in
Stubbs's "Constitutional History of England," vol. i., p. 265:
"It has been maintained that a formal and definitive act, forming the
initial point of the feudalization of England, is to be found in a
clause of the laws, as they are called, of the Conqueror, which directs
that every FREEMAN shall affirm, by covenant and oath, that 'he will be
faithful to King William within England and without, will join him
in preserving his land with all fidelity, and defend him against his
enemies.' But this injunction is little more than the demand of the oath
of allegiance taken to the Anglo-Saxon kings, and is here required
not of every feudal dependant of the king, but of every FREEMAN or
freeholder whatsoever. In that famous Council of Salisbury, A. D, 1086,
which was summoned immediately after the making of the Doomsday survey,
we learn, from the 'Chronicle,' that there came to the king 'all his
witan and all the landholders of substance in England, whose vassals
soever they were, and they all submitted to him and became his men, and
swore oaths of allegiance that they would be faithful to him against all
others.' In the act has been seen the formal acceptance and date of the
introduction of feudalism, but it has a very different meaning. The oath
described is the oath of allegiance, combined with the act of homage,
and obtained from all landowners whoever their feudal lord might be.
It is a measure of precaution taken against the disintegrating power
of feudalism, providing a direct tie between the sovereign and all
freeholders which no inferior relations existing between them and the
mesne lords would justify them in breaking."
I have already quoted from another of Stubbs's works, "Select Charters,"
the charter which he appears to have discovered bearing upon this
transaction, and now copy the note, giving the authorities quoted
by Stubbs, with reference to the above passage. He appears to have
overlooked the complete narration of the alleged laws of William I.,
given by Eadmerus, to which I have referred. The note is as follows:
"Ll. William I., 2, below note; see Hovenden, ii., pref. p. 5, seq.,
where I have attempted to prove the spuriousness of the document called
the Charter of William I., printed in the ancient 'Laws' ed. Thorpe, p.
211. The way in which the regulation of the Conqueror here referred
to has been misunderstood and misused is curious. Lambarde, in the
'Archaionomia,' p. 170, printed the false charter in which this genuine
article is incorporated as an appendiz to the French version of the
Conqueror's laws, numbering the clauses 51 to 67; from Lambarde,
the whole thing was transferred by Wilkins into his collection of
ANGLO-SAXON laws. Blackstone's 'Commentary,' ii. 49, suggested that
perhaps the very law (which introduced feudal tenures) thus made at the
Council of Salisbury is that which is still extant and couched in these
remarkable words, i. e., the injunction in question referred to by
Wilkins, p. 228 Ellis, in the introduction to 'Doomsday,' i. 16,
quotes Blackstone, but adds a reference to Wilkins without verifying
Blackstone's quotation from his collection of laws, substituting for
that work the Concilia, in which the law does not occur. Many modern
writers have followed him in referring the enactment of the article
to the Council of Salisbury. It is well to give here the text of both
passages; that in the laws runs thus: 'Statuimus etiam ut omnis liber
homo foedere et sacremento affirmet, quod intra et extra Angliam
Willelmo regi fideles esse volunt, terras et honorem illius omni
fidelitate eum eo servare et ante eum contra inimicos defendere' (Select
Charters, p. 80). the homage done at Salisbury is described by Florence
thus: 'Nec multo post mandavit ut Archiepiscopi episcopi, abbates,
comitas et barones et vicecomitas cum suis militibus die Kalendarum
Augustarem sibi occurent Saresberiae quo cum venissent milites eorem
sibi fidelitatem contra omnes homines jurare coegit.' The 'Chronicle'
is a little more full: 'Thaee him comon to his witan and ealle tha
Landsittende men the ahtes waeron ofer eall Engleland waeron thaes
mannes men the hi waeron and ealle hi bugon to him and waeron his men,
and him hold athas sworon thaet he woldon ongean ealle other men him
holde beon.'"
Mr. Stubbs had, in degree, adopted the view at which I had arrived, that
the law or charter of William I. was an injunction to enforce the oath
of allegiance, previously ordered by the laws of Edward the Confessor,
to be taken by all FREEMEN, and that it did not relate to vassals, or
alter the existing feudalism.
As the subject possesses considerable interest for the general reader
as well as the learned historian, I think it well to place the two
authorities side by side, that the text may be compared: