GOVERNMENT AND LAWS. The Norman Conquest, although it modified, did not destroy the political and judicial system of the Anglo-Saxons. The Great Council was still retained; its concurrence was necessary to the succession of the sovereign, nor could the king without its consent carry out any law.

The Shire, Hundred, and Manor Courts were retained. But here a great change was effected by the Conqueror, in the removal of the bishop from the former, in which both lay and spiritual causes had before been tried, to a distinct tribunal of his own. This measure, though only intended to guard the independence of the Church, was attended with important resuits. Although, formerly, when the bishop presided with the earl in the shire-court, the office of declaring the law was, to some extent, confined to the one or the other, as the case had reference to a civil or spiritual offence, yet the presence of the bishop obtained for it popular confidence. By his removal this confidence was withdrawn. The local courts began to be abandoned, and all who could sought redress in the higher court of the sovereign, or the Great Council, consisting of the tenants of the crown. The greater influx of suitors to the superior tribunal, led to the establishment of an inferior Council, which constantly attended the person of the king to hear and decide the causes brought before him, when the usual members of the Great Council were not present. This court, to which and to the Great Council the name "Curia Regis" was indifferently given, consisted of certain great officers of state named by the king, and possessed all those different powers afterwards distributed among the courts of the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas and the Exchequer. The effect of this institution was to add greatly to the power of the crown, while its encroachments on the legislative functions of the Great Council were, for several centuries, the subject of frequent complaints.

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. The chief feature by which the Conquest was marked, was the introduction of the complete Feudal system,-a system, traces of which were to be found in Saxon times; fines for alienation, reliefs under the name of "heriots," and even escheats-conditions incident to feudal tenure-being mentioned before the Conquest. By the feudal system, which was introduced, with the consent of the Great Council, A.D. 1085, the king was considered to be the supreme lord of all the land in the realm. It was divided into 60,000 estates, called "Knights' fees." For every knight's fee, the occupier, called a vassal, was bound to provide a knight or soldier for forty days in the year, to attend the king in his wars, as well as to be present when he held his court. The occupiers of these fees were called the tenants-in-chief of the crown. They had, however, the right to sub-let their land to others, called "Vavassors," of whom they became the lords, being themselves called "Mêsne," or Middle Lords. The dependence of the vassal on his lord was expressed by an act of homage, in return for which the lord conferred on the vassal the investiture or the right of possession of the land. The manner in which homage was rendered, though slightly varying in different countries, consisted, mainly, in the vassal kneeling, putting his hands between those of his lord, and declaring that "he became his man (homo) from that day forth." In France it was customary for the vassal to kiss the lord's foot. It must be added, that this kind of tenure imposed on the vassal, besides the obligation of military service, certain other obligations —1. The payment of a

fine called a relief, on the heir succeeding to the estate; 2. A fine for alienation, a sum paid to the lord when the tenant transferred the land to another; 3. The escheat, or return of the estate, if the vassal died without heirs; 4. Grants to the lord, called aids, on certain occasions; and 5. Wardship, or the right of keeping the lands of the heir till the age of twenty-one.

Vassalage had in it nothing humiliating. It was a kind of mutual contract, which could only exist by the formal consent of both parties. The kings of England were vassals to those of France for their Duchies held in that country, while the latter were vassals to the Abbey of St. Denys.

A few remarks must be added on the political and social bearing of this system. The character of a feudal army, liable to serve only for forty days, was little adapted to schemes of foreign conquests:—an important check on the ambitious designs of warlike princes, at a time when standing armies were unknown. To this circumstance it was, in part, owing, that the wars between powerful monarchs were, in these ages, often attended with slight results, and with little loss of life. At the same time, the independence of the feudal lords, with numerous vassals, bound to serve them in the field, giving them the means of inflicting private injuries for which there was little hope of redress, was the real evil of the times. Nor was the civil aspect of this system less important. The judgment of each by his peers was the basis of feudal justice. We have seen that it was part of the obligation of the vassal to attend the court of his lord. It was the duty of this court, composed as it was of those tenants who were the peers of each other, to assist in trying the complaints of the lord against his vassals, or of one vassal against another. Whatever may have been the precise period at which the system of trial by jury assumed its present form, we undoubtedly have here the recognition of the great principle upon which one of the most valuable judicial institutions of modern times is based.

One important peculiarity attending the introduction of the feudal system into England remains to be noticed. When sub-infeudation was effected, it was customary for the vassal to swear allegiance, not to the lord in whom the ultimate property resided, but to the immediate lord of whom he held the land. In a council held at Salisbury, A.D. 1086, William, however, exacted a direct oath of fealty to himself from all the sub-tenants, as well as from the immediate tenants of the crown. The authority of the royal court was thus rendered paramount throughout the kingdom.

ANNALS. Several of the authorities mentioned under the Anglo-Saxon period, afford also information with regard to the history of England after the Conquest. Of later Chronicles we may name those of Eadmer, which extend to A.D. 1122; William of Newbury to 1197; Gervase of Canterbury to 1199; Trivet to 1307; Benedict of Peterborough to 1192; Ralph de Diceto to 1199; Ralph of Coggeshall to 1200; Peter of Blois to 1486; and the Annals of Waverley to 1291. Besides these, we possess the "Life of William I.,” by William of Poictiers; the work of Ordericus Vitalis to A.D. 1141; and the Annals of St. Albans, formerly attributed to Matthew Paris, but now known to be, in great part, the work of Roger of Wendover and William Rishanger.

MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. The dress worn by the Normans consisted generally of a loose doublet reaching half-way down the leg, a short cloak, long tight hose, fastened to the doublet by many strings, called points, leg-bandages, and shoes or short boots with long pointed toes. The armour of the Normans did not differ materially from that used by the Saxons. It was called a halbers (halsberg, protection for the throat), or hauberk, and consisted of flat rings, sewn together upon leather. It also bore the name of mail, from the French word mailles. The helmet was conical; the shield, flat and kite-shaped. Until the time of Richard I., heraldic devices were not employed. Embroidery, which had been much practised before the Conquest, was still the chief occupation of ladies. A celebrated specimen of the needlework of the period is still preserved in the Cathedral of Bayeux. It is a piece of tapestry, which represents the chief events connected with the Conquest, and is ascribed by some, though without sufficient evidence, to Maltida, the wife of William.

Few alterations were made in English household furniture. The table still rested upon tressels, the floors were strewn with straw or rushes, and a rug laid upon a bench served as a bed. The banqueting hall was still used as the common sleeping room. Paintings upon the wainscot or the walls of the chamber, in some instances, now replaced the hangings of needlework which had formerly been employed. Painting and gilding were also used in the decoration of the ceiling. The Normans are said to have introduced a more refined manner of living than had hitherto prevailed in England. They had only two regular meals in the day, dinner at nine or ten in the morning, and supper at four or five in the afternoon.

The Joust, or Tournament, was the favourite amusement of the Normans. An enclosed space, called the Lists, was made ready, with galleries arranged around for the spectators. On one side a seat was raised for the judge, who held in his hand a short staff, or bâton, which he threw down as a signal that the contest should close, when the life of one of the combatants was in danger. Tents were pitched at either end for the rival knights. The challengers, whose names were announced by heralds, entering at one end, advanced up the lists, when each touched with his lance the shield of the opponent whom he selected; if the challenge were accepted, the knight, taking the lance in his right hand, placed the lower end in a socket fixed in the saddle, then the trumpets sounded the charge, and the combatants, galloping towards one another, met in the centre, each trying to unhorse the other with his weapon. At the close of the Joust, heralds announced the names of the victors, who were rewarded with the horses and armour of those whom they had vanquished. This sport, called tilting, lasted some days, and often ended with what was called a Mêlée, or general engagement, in which several knights took part. Although the Tournament was condemned by the Church, on account of the blood-shed which occasionally attended it, it continued to be popular for several centuries. Hawking and the chase formed, also, occupations of the gentry, while among the peasantry the quintain, the water-tournament, archery, wrestling, football, and boar and bull baiting were practised.

LANGUAGE. Important changes in the English tongue were effected by the Conquest.

The followers of William spoke Norman-French. This became the language of the Court, the Parliament, and the Courts of Justice; while, among the lower orders, Anglo-Saxon was still spoken. The language used by the ruling class naturally exercised, however, some influence upon that of the conquered race. An alteration was slowly effected in the latter, more, however, by changes in its grammatical structure than by the introduction of new words; and, from the period of the Conquest, to the accession of Henry III., the language of England is known as Semi-Saxon. Most, however of the works which have come down to us from this period are historical records, which were composed by ecclesiastics in Latin. Letters, even of a private character, were also written in Latin. The progress of time, and the intermixture of the French and Saxon tongues, effected further changes, and produced a language which has resulted in our present English. The earliest extant specimen of what is generally spoken of as English, as distinguished from Semi-Saxon, is a proclamation addressed by Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. The stages through which our language has passed from that period to the present time are generally known as Old English to the reign of Edward III.; Middle English, from that period to the reign of Elizabeth; and Modern English, from the time of Elizabeth to our own times. Anglo-Saxon must be regarded as the mother-tongue of our present languagenearly five-eighths of the words now employed being of Anglo-Saxon origin.

ARCHITECTURE. Architecture was greatly improved by the Conquest. The timber mansion which had served as the residence of the more wealthy Saxon proprietor, was replaced by the massive Norman castle. Around the ballium, or court of the castle, was a lofty wall, strengthened by towers, and a parapet, and surrounded by a wide ditch, or moat. This moat was crossed by a draw-bridge, which was defended by an outwork, called the Barbican. The entrance archway, besides its massive gates, was protected by the Portcullis. Within the court stood a square tower, or keep, of three or four stories. The lowest story was a dark vaulted basement, designed for stores, and sometimes used for the custody of prisoners. The second story, in which was the entrance accessible only by a steep and narrow stair, was occupied by the garrison, while the upper floor contained the apartments of the chieftain and his family. On each story were one or two large rooms, and the upper floor had in addition several small closets, constructed in the turrets, or projections of the wall. There is little reason to doubt that smaller mansion-houses of timber were frequently erected by the Normans, although few examples of this class of dwellings remain. In these, the staircase was external; chimneys similar to those now in use are in some instances met with in Norman buildings, but the apartment was generally warmed by a central hearth slightly raised above the floor, from which the smoke escaped by an open lantern in the roof.

In Ecclesiastical Architecture a marked improvement is visible. The semi-circular arch is the principal feature of the Norman style; fine examples of which are the cathedrals of Durham, founded by W. Cariphelo (A.D. 1093), Rochester, by Gundulph (1077), Hereford, by Bishop R. Losing (1079), Gloucester, by Abbot Serlo (1088), and Peterborough, by Ernulph (1107).