"the Great Court ;" and in other languages by other similar designations, which I need not enumerate. This council not only made and altered the laws of the land; but also enforced them, being a court of justice for settling disputes relating to the ownership of land, and for trying and punishing great criminals. It also imposed the taxes, and sometimes appointed the king's ministers. By an ordinance of Alfred the Great, it was commanded to assemble twice in the year at least, or oftener, according to the state of the country; and the laws which it passed were prefaced with a declaration that they were such as the king, with the advice of his clergy and wise men, had instituted. It was composed of Lords Spiritual and Temporal-namely, of Barons, who were summoned by virtue of their tenure as holding in capite of the king, and of bishops and heads of religious houses whose tenure was in chief of the crown. You will perceive hereafter how close a resemblance this ancient council bears to the modern parliament.

Shortly after the Norman Conquest, the feudal system, at that time in force throughout a great portion of Europe, was introduced into England by William the Norman; not, as is sometimes said, to enable him to reward his followers out of the spoils of a conquered country, but at the request of the Great Assembly of the Realm, in order that the kingdom might be put into a state of defence against a threatened invasion from Denmark. Once established, however, by the people for their protection against a foreign enemy, it was soon turned against them by those to whom they looked for protection into an engine of the grossest oppression. Under this feudal system (which, in its purity, was admirably adapted to an age in which war and conquest were the chief pursuits of mankind) the entire soil of a country was held to be the absolute property of its sovereign; and was divided into estates called feuds or feofs, and held of him by his chief men, called the barons, vassals, and tenants in capite of the Crown, upon the condition of their doing homage and swearing fealty (loyalty) to him, and attending him in his wars at the head of a certain number of armed men. To obtain these they in turn had to distribute land, and also to let out their own estates for cultivation in their absence, whilst performing their services, receiving rent (called in those days redditus, or a return) in the shape of corn and provisions to support them and their followers upon their campaigns. The relationship this created was known as that of lord and vassal. Every vassal was bound

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

5

to defend and obey his immediate lord, according to the terms under which he held his land, but no further. On his part the lord was bound to protect his vassals, and to do justice between them.

At first these feuds were held only during the will of the lord; they could not be transferred or disposed of by those who held them during their lives, nor did they descend to their heirs at their deaths. Those persons only who were capable of bearing arms, and were chosen by the lord, could succeed to them. Infants, women, and monks were therefore excluded as a matter of course. Subsequently, the heirs of a deceased tenant were permitted to share his lands amongst them upon payment of what was called a fine, or present of armour, horses, or money to the lord. But the division of authority this occasioned was found to weaken the defences of the country; and it became the general rule to admit one heir only, in some parts the eldest, in others the youngest son of the deceased, or some other male relative capable of taking upon himself the conditions of the feud. Gradually, as intelligence and wealth began to increase, and other arts than those of war to be followed, these feuds became the absolute property of their tenants no longer vassals liable to be dispossessed at any moment at the mere caprice of the lord, but free holders of the soil, possessing power to sell or bequeath it as they pleased, subject only to certain rules of law.

Those lands that remained free, that is, which were not bound to render service to a superior lord, or suzerain, though liable to burthens for the public defence; were called allodial in contradistinction to feudal. The ceremony by which the vassal acknowledged his feudal dependence and obligations was called homage, from homo, a man, because the vassal became the man of his lord. Homage was accompanied with an oath of fealty on the part of the vassal, and investiture on the part of the lord, which was the conveying of possession of the fief by means of some pledge or token. Homage was of two kinds, liege and simple. Liege homage (from Lat. ligare, Fr. lier, to bind) not only obliged the liege man to do personal service in the army, but also disabled him from renouncing his vassality by surrendering his fief. The liege man took the oath of fealty on his knees without sword and spurs, and with his hands placed between those of his lord. The vassal who rendered simple homage had the power of finding a substitute for military service, or could altogether liberate himself by the

surrender of his fief. In simple homage the vassal took the oath standing, girt with his sword and with his hands at liberty. The great chief, residing in his country seat, which he was commonly allowed to fortify, lost in a great measure his connexion or acquaintance with the Prince, and added every day new force to his authority over the vassals of his barony. They received from him education in all military enterprises; his hospitality invited them to live and enjoy society in his hall; their leisure, which was great, made them perpetual attendants on his person, and partakers of his country sports and amusements; they had no means of gratifying their ambition but by making a figure in his train; his favour was their greatest honour; his displeasure exposed them to contempt and ignominy; and they felt every moment the necessity of his protection, both in the controversies which occurred with other vassals, and, what was more material, in the daily inroads and injuries which were committed by the neighbouring barons. From these causes not only was the royal authority extremely eclipsed, but even the military vassals, as well as the lower dependants and serfs, were held in a state of subjection, from which nothing could free them but the progress of commerce and the rise of cities, the true strongholds of freedom.

The changes which in a few lines I have thus narrated to you took many eventful years to accomplish. Our sturdy forefathers grappled manfully with the iron yoke to which they had unwittingly subjected themselves, and slowly, but surely, regained the freedom which had been enjoyed under their old Saxon rulers. Their kings frequently required, for furthering their ambition or ministering to their pleasure, larger sums and greater services than the feudal system could provide; and, as it was a fixed principle in this country, in its earliest days and under its most despotic rulers, that no man should be taxed without his own consent or that of his representative, the Great Council of the nation-the successors of the Wittena Gemote-had to be summoned to grant what was required. Seldom did it do so without obtaining in return the abolition of some abuse, or the restoration of some privilege as the price of its concessions.

For a considerable time this council consisted of all the king's barons, or those who held estates immediately of the Crown; but its constitution was regulated by Magna Carta, which ordained that all archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls,

ORIGIN OF PARLIAMENT.

7

and greater barons should be summoned to Parliament severally by the king's letters. Thus what we now call the House of Lords was established.

In time of peace the great barons resided in castles scattered throughout the country, in which they held almost regal state and exercised almost royal powers. The lower orders flocked beneath their battlements for protection against robbers and the followers of other lords hostile to their own; for these barons were a lawless, turbulent race, and often at open war with each other. Thus, in many places, as population increased, towns were formed. There are few old cities and towns in England in the midst of which you will not see the ruins of some castle or fortress frowning from an eminence, or guarding the banks of a river; and round its crumbling walls are sure to be found the oldest houses in the place. As arts, commerce, and trade began to take root and flourish, the inhabitants of some of these settlements became so enriched as to be able to purchase great privileges of their immediate lords, and of the king, which rendered them independent communities. Soon, therefore, owing to the old principle which I have mentioned, it became necessary to summon some of their members to the Great Council, not as barons, but as citizens and burgesses. For similar reasons the freeholders, whose progress from a state of servitude I have already sketched, had to be represented by knights of the shire, elected from among themselves, to enable the king to collect revenue from their rich brethren. The exact date at which our Constitution took this shape is the subject of much doubt; but it is certain that in the reign of Henry III., Simon de Montford, Earl of Leicester, and the king's minister, issued writs directing the election of two knights for every county, two citizens for every city, and two burgesses for every borough, to serve in the grand council of the kingdom.

These deputies who were first returned to Parliament were scarcely representatives in any sense of the term, for they possessed no legislative powers or authority whatever at the outset. They were limited in their functions to "inquiring into grievances, and delivering their inquisition into Parliament," in which character they seem to have acted the part of Commissioners, rather than popular representatives. At first the main object for which they were summoned was to grant supplies. They were elected by the freeholders exclusively, and assembled once or twice in each year, taking their seats at

the lower end of the chamber in which the barons and other magnates sat, but they did not mingle or vote in common with the peers. They assisted as spectators, without any voice in the deliberations, but with the right of assenting to, though it would seem not of dissenting from, what had been done by the Lords of Parliament. Perhaps indeed the chief, if not the sole function of the early deputies, was to consent to the taxes that had been imposed upon their constituents. And therefore we cannot wonder that the worthy burgesses and freeholders of those days did not at first fully appreciate the advantages of the representative system. So far from hailing it as a boon or privilege, we find that some boroughs considered it a burden, and that the electers neglected and even refused to send deputies to Parliament, on the ground of their own poverty and consequent inability to defray the expenses of their representatives. And here it may be proper to observe that in early times, and even down to a comparatively modern period, the members of the Lower House received pay for their serviceson a scale more or less liberal according to circumstances: in more recent times the honour and dignity attached to this office have been considered an adequate recompense for the duties which pertain to it.

In the reign of Edward I. was passed the famous statute, ever memorable in our constitutional annals, which enacted that "No tax should be levied without the joint consent of the Lords and Commons". '—a statute of so much importance that to it is chiefly owing the great influence which the House of Commons acquired in subsequent times. Ever since the reign of Edward II., the Lords and Commons have occupied separate chambers; the precise date, however, of their separation has not been determined by historical writers. But from that period downwards the power and influence of the Lower House of Parliament have continued to increase, until it may fairly be said now to have become predominant in all State affairs. This must be undoubtedly attributed to financial considerations in the first place, and secondly to the growth of a wealthy and enlightened middle-class, who by their intelligence, commercial enterprise and industry have been the chief means of raising this country-so far, at least, as its vast material and pecuniary resources are concerned-to that degree of preeminence which it now holds amongst the kingdoms and empires of the whole civilized world. The taxation of the country is now entirely managed by the House of Commons.