in its pretensions as to claim for itself the sanctities of a divine institution. It had neither a Moses, a Mahomet, nor a Confucius for its founder. It was a scheme of partially civilised men, intended for the security of their conquests, the administration of justice and political government; for the division of land, its cultivation, and the allocation of its inhabitants and produce. That it succeeded so well evinces a natural disposition in man, unaided by higher sanctions, to contrive social remedies for the social maladies that environ him. European society, without the organisation of the feudal tenures, would have been no better than an army without officers or discipline, or a community of settlers transported to Australia without governors, laws, or territorial rights.

It must not be concluded that feudalism was perfect on its first introduction. It had been in progress of development on the Continent for seven or eight centuries previous to the Conquest. The fiefs, or grants of land on condition of service, appear to have been first made for the life of the grantee. By a transition natural to human nature, the life-interest slided into a perpetuity; but though hereditary succession was allowed, absolute ownership was never recognised; and the son, on succeeding his father in the inheritance, was obliged to pay an acknowledgment to his superior called a relief. He must also take the oath of fealty or allegiance, and do homage. Traces of both survive. In doing homage for lands, the vassal, ungirding his sword and uncovering his head, knelt before his lord, and, holding up his clasped hands, solemnly declared to him that from that day forth he became his man (homme, whence the word homage), to serve him with life and limb, and earthly honour. The ceremony generally ended by his kissing the lord's cheek, which salute the lord returned. A rem

INSTITUTIONS OF CHIVALRY.

25

nant of this is retained in the coronation: the peers, all kneeling before the king, uncovered, and then kissing his cheek, -symbols of affection, obedience, mutual faith, and protection.

Besides establishing order and political government, other benefits were conferred. The rights of property and industry ascertained, society was prepared for a further advance in civilisation by the melioration of social amenities. To this the introduction of Chivalry preeminently contributed. It was an incident of feudalism, and tended to the refinement of manners, to introduce grace, courtesy, and honour. The barons were the salt of the earth. Preeminent in rank, as the landowners, legislators, and judges, it was meet they should also be distinguished from the commonalty by elevation of sentiment and behaviour. Hence the establishment in Europe, between the age of Charlemagne and that of the Crusades, of the order of Knighthood. It was an institution of honour and of moral example, not of property, function, or jurisdiction. A character without reproach and a honourable descent were indispensable; though a valiant plebeian was sometimes enriched and knighted. The honour was coveted by the highest, even princes, and could only be conferred by one who had acquired the distinction. The ceremony of making a Knight was at first simple; after some previous trial the candidate was invested with sword and spurs, and his shoulder touched with a slight blow, intimative of the last affront he ought to endure. He swore to defend the fair sex, to speak the truth, to maintain the right, to succour the distressed, to practise courtesy (a virtue much needed in these times), to combat the infidels, to despise the allurements of ease and safety, and to vindicate in every perilous adventure the honour of his

character. These engagements were all laudable, noble, humane, and generous. Traces of them have never been wholly obliterated; and to the institution of Chivalry society is unquestionably indebted for some of its most gracious and elevating distinctions. It was auxiliary both to plebeian and patrician morals, and aided the deficiencies of religious teaching. Observing on a word native to the West, Dean Milman remarks that, " Courtesy designates a new virtue, not ordained by our religion." "The age of chivalry," he continues, “ may be gone, but the influences of chivalry, it may be hoped, mingled with and softened by purer religion, will be the imperishable heirloom of social man."

Under what aspect, then, ought the feudal age to be viewed? Was it an enviable one? From the present it was wholly dissimilar. Of this the characteristics are isolation, personal independence, and absence of superiority. Of the past, a universal connexion, a chain of subordination that bound all, was the leading feature. No one stood single, or was left to his own resources. All were cared for, or had objects of care. Nearly all were masters, but no one was free. The highest links were the least controlled. The baron was a prince, his castle a palace, his domain a kingdom, his vassals and retainers were his lieges. Sometimes his influence was salutary, sometimes pernicious. If he controlled the monarch, he enfeebled the monarchy. There could be no nation under the feudal system; only a federation of states. Feudalism was better than anarchy or the total absence of law and government; but as a permanent social polity it was decidedly objectionable. First, it was an institution of castes, irrespective of desert or utility, leaving little scope for the expansion of society, either in its moral or material elements. Secondly, it operated perniciously in rendering

VICES OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

27

honour, function, and property hereditary, and accumulative in the privileged classes. Thirdly, it was a system of monopoly, and of civil inequality to the excluded and degraded orders. Fourthly, it was a power without responsibility, therefore tyranny, and liable to be tyrannically exercised.

The last was among the causes of the decline of feudalism. It had rendered good service at the commencement, in laying the foundations of European society amidst the storms and confusion which followed the dissolution of the Roman empire. But there its mission ended. It could not be permanent. Absolute power inevitably tends to involve in a common ruin its possessor and victim. The haughty barons were corrupted by it. Amenable to no law, tribunal, or authority, without intellectual culture or resources, they were the slaves of their passions, and almost without any object of pursuit or ambition save rapine, violence, and commotion. One of the memorable enterprises to which ignorant fanaticism made them a prey was the Crusades for the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels; but even this extravagant enterprise was not so impoverishing and ruinous to them as their private wars. Aided by their vassals and mercenary dependents, hostilities were carried on against each other with the utmost fury. During these conflicts the condition of the people was deplorable; no security for person or property. The baronial castles were so many dens of robbers, whence the occupiers sallied forth, day and night, to commit spoil on the open country, the villages, and even the towns. Torture was frequently resorted to by the lordly brigands to extort from the people the produce of their industry. "Some," says the Saxon Chronicle, "they hanged up by the feet and smoked with foul smoke; some by the thumbs or the beard, and hung coats

of mail on their feet. They put them into dungeons, with adders, and snakes, and toads. Many thousands they wore out with hunger." These disorders were at their height in the reign of Stephen, in which there was neither justice nor humanity; and the natural result of such wild confusion was the cessation of the arts of industry; the land was left untilled, and a grievous famine ensued, which reduced the spoiler and the spoiled to extreme destitution.

A prominent feature of this age was the bondage of the mass of the people. However repulsive personal slavery may be, its introduction was a step in civilisation, and originated in humane motives. The ancient practice of warfare was to destroy all the prisoners taken; and it was only after the lapse of time that the more merciful mode was adopted of reducing them to slavery. A second advance was, not only to save the lives of prisoners, but to cease to make bondmen of them. This last has been a triumph of modern civilisation, and did not obtain generally among the nations of antiquity. Personal servitude, indeed, as Mr. Hallam remarks, up to a comparatively recent period, has been the lot of a large, perhaps the greater, portion of mankind.

Great as was the Norman revolution, it did not effect any change in the condition of the masses. Their services were as necessary to the new as to the old masters; and as the terms on which these had been exacted could hardly be made more onerous, they continued without alteration. Except, too, by enforcing with greater strictness the feudal relations, the better to maintain the ascendency of the invaders, no changes were made in the chain of subordination and dependence which that system had previously introduced. So that, for a long time after the Conquest, the Saxon subdivisions of society were maintained, and