its side, which for a while supplanted it as the language of polite intercourse.'1 The most important result of the Conquest, in its Feudalism. constitutional aspect, was the assimilation of all the institutions of the country, from the highest to the lowest, to the feudal type. This was a consequence of the immense confiscations of landed estates, which, occurring not all at once but from time to time, ultimately placed King William in the position of supreme landowner, and established the Feudal System in England. establishment. The steps by which this great change was brought Its gradual about, and the nature of the system of tenure thus established, demand some consideration. At first the Conqueror, with an appearance of strict legality, appropriated merely the extensive royal domains the folkland, now finally changed into terra regis-and the large forfeited estates of the Godwine family and of all those who had, or were suspected of having, taken up arms against him. Reserving to himself as the demesne of the Crown more than 1400 large manors scattered over various counties, he divided the rest among his companions in arms. Although William affected to regard all Englishmen as more or less tainted with treason and liable to forfeiture of their estates, inasmuch as they had either fought against him or failed to range themselves on his side, yet the bulk of the landholders were at first suffered to retain their possessions. But there is reason to believe that this was The English subject to the condition of accepting a regrant from the redeem their Conqueror; the more important personages, in return for 1 Freeman, Norm. Conq. i. 4. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to remark that the term 'Conqueror' did not in the language of the time of which we are treating imply subjugation, but signified merely one who had sought and obtained his right.' In reality, however, the modern meaning of the term more accurately describes William's practical position, which was, as he himself once expressed it, King by the edge of the sword.' E lands. Effects of the nationality of their origin and of their new home. The The The immediate changes which the Conquest introduced were undoubtedly great, but they were practical rather than formal. The power of the crown was vastly increased. As the government became more centralized, local self-government, the essential characteristic of our Teutonic constitution, was for a time depressed; but only to arise again later on, when the nobles and people became united against the tyranny of the crown. social aspect of England was enormously changed. The old dynasty had been supplanted by an alien family. The old aristocracy was superseded by a new nobility. It is true that the conquest 'did not expel or transplant the English nation or any part of it, but it gradually deprived the leading men and families of England of their lands and offices, and thrust them down into a secondary position under alien intruders. It did not at once sweep away the old laws and liberties of the land ; but it at once changed the manner and spirit of their administration, and it opened the way for endless later changes in the laws themselves. It did not abolish the English language, but it brought in a new language by 1 Macaulay, Hist. Eng. i. 10. its side, which for a while supplanted it as the language of polite intercourse.'1 The most important result of the Conquest, in its Feudalism. constitutional aspect, was the assimilation of all the institutions of the country, from the highest to the lowest, to the feudal type. This was a consequence of the immense confiscations of landed estates, which, occurring not all at once but from time to time, ultimately placed King William in the position of supreme landowner, and established the Feudal System in England. establishment. The steps by which this great change was brought Its gradual about, and the nature of the system of tenure thus established, demand some consideration. At first the Conqueror, with an appearance of strict legality, appropriated merely the extensive royal domains the folkland, now finally changed into terra regis-and the large forfeited estates of the Godwine family and of all those who had, or were suspected of having, taken up arms against him. Reserving to himself as the demesne of the Crown more than 1400 large manors scattered over various counties, he divided the rest among his companions in arms. Although William affected to regard all Englishmen as more or less tainted with treason and liable to forfeiture of their estates, inasmuch as they had either fought against him or failed to range themselves on his side, yet the bulk of the landholders were at first suffered to retain their possessions. But there is reason to believe that this was The English subject to the condition of accepting a regrant from the redeem their Conqueror; the more important personages, in return for 1 Freeman, Norm. Conq. i. 4. 2 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to remark that the term 'Conqueror' did not in the language of the time of which we are treating imply subjugation, but signified merely one who had sought and obtained his right.' In reality, however, the modern meaning of the term more accurately describes William's practical position, which was, as he himself once expressed it, King by the edge of the sword.' E lands. Insurrections, followed by extensive confiscations. their adhesion, receiving back their estates as a free gift, the smaller owners on payment of a money consideration. By this means William procured a peaceable acknowledgment of his title over extensive districts into which his arms had not yet penetrated. During the Conqueror's first absence from England a reaction set in after the panic; and the oppression and insolence of the Normans, Odo of Bayeux and William FitzOsbern, who had been left in charge of the kingdom as justices regent, excited the natives to rebel. One rising was no sooner suppressed than others broke out in different parts of the kingdom, and the first four years of his reign were occupied by William in acquiring the actual sovereignty of his new dominions. Each insurrection as it occurred was followed by a confiscation of the estates of those who in the eye of the law were rebels, however patriotic and morally justifiable may have been the motives by which they were actuated. Thus, by a gradual process and with an outward show of legality, nearly all the lands of the kingdom came into the hands of the king, and were by him. granted out to his Norman nobles, to be held by the feudal tenure, to which they were alone accustomed in their own country. The maxim of later times, 'Tout fuit en lui et vient de lui al commencement,'' seems to have been something more than a fiction. At the time 1 The Peterborough (contemporary) chronicler speaks of all who did homage to William at or soon after his coronation, as buying their land: And menn guldon him gyld and gislas sealdon, and syddan heora land bohtan' (Chron. -Petrib. 1066). This statement is confirmed by an incidental reference in Domesday to a time when the English as a body redeemed their lands. Of some of the lands of St. Eadmundsbury we read: Hanc terram habet Abbas in vadimonio pro xi marcas auri, concessu Engelrici quando redimebant Anglici terras suas' (Domesday, ii. 360, apud Freeman, Norm. Conq. iv. 25). The Inquisitio Eliensis also confirms this view: Hoc totum tripliciter; scilicet tempore Regis Eaduardi, et quando Rex Willelmus dedit; et quomodo sit modo.' 2 Nulli Gallo datum quod Anglo cuiquam injuste fuerit ablatum.'— Orderic. Vital. 3 Year Book, 24 Edw. III. 65, apud Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction, of the Domesday survey there still remained some few exceptions to the general feudal tenure, but before the accession of Henry I. all tenures seem to have become uniformly feudal.1 feudalism. At the period of the Norman conquest feudalism in Continental both tenure and government was fully established in France, the country of its historic development, and in most of the continental countries of Europe. grown up gradually, deriving its elements partly from a Roman, partly from a Teutonic source. Indirectly and in part it may be traced to the Roman system of usufructuary ownership and to the practice, under the empire, of granting out frontier lands to the limitanei milites, to be held by military service; but its direct and principal sources were (1) the system of beneficiary grants which grew up under the Frank kings and emperors, working in combination with (2) the practice of personal commendation or vassalage, which seems to have superseded and absorbed the primitive and, in many respects, analogous German comitatus. On the Continent feudalism had become much more The machinery feudalized. than a mere system of tenure. It was inseparably of government bound up with the system of government and the legal and social relations of the people. To the possession of a fief was united the right of local judicature. Originally tenable for life only, fiefs soon came to be hereditary. The practice of sub-infeudation' naturally followed. Sub-infeudation. The great feudatory who had received large grants of land from his sovereign, retained a certain portion for his own demesne and then parcelled out the remainder amongst his own dependents, to be held by services. similar to those which he himself owed. The provincial governors, who held the largest beneficiary estates, and in many cases were also extensive alodial proprietors, found themselves strong enough to establish a number 1 Stubbs, Select Chart. Introductory Sketch, 14. |