the inhabitants of towns, and freemen of inferior conditions, were decided in the courts of justice, as were likewise all disputes between gentlemen on the one side, and persons of inferior rank on the other. The right of private war supposed nobility of birth and equality of rank in both the contending parties. The dignified ecclesiastics also claimed and exercised the right of private war; but as it was not deemed altogether decorous for them to prosecute quarrels in person, they employed the services of champions, under the designation of advocati, or vidames. These champions were commonly men of high rank and reputation, who became the protectors of the churches and convents by which they were elected, espousing their quarrels and fighting their battles; although it sometimes happened that the martial ideas of the ecclesiastics made them forget the pacific spirit of their profession, and led them into the field in person at the head of their vassals. It was not every injury or trespass that gave a gentleman a title to make war upon his adversary. Atrocious acts of violence, insults and affronts publicly committed, were legal and permitted motives for taking up arms against the authors of them. Such crimes as are now punished capitally in civilized nations were permitted at that time to justify private hostilities. But though the avenging of injuries was the only motive that could legally authorise a private war, yet disputes concerning civil property often gave rise to hostilities, and were terminated by the sword. When any quarrel arose, or any act of violence was committed, all persons present were included in the war which it occasioned; for it was supposed to be impossible for any man in such a situation to remain neutral, aud not take part with one or the other of the contending parties. All the kindred of the two principals in the war were included in it, and were obliged to espouse the quarrel of the chieftain with whom they were connected. This obligation was even enforced by legal authority; for if a person refused to take part in the quarrel of his kinsman, and to aid him against EXEMPTION FROM TAXES. 29 the adversary, he was deemed to have renounced all the rights and privileges of kinsmanship, and to have become incapable of succeeding to any of his relations, or of deriving any benefit from any civil right or property belonging to them. The method of ascertaining the degree of affinity which obliged a person to take part in the quarrel of a kinsman was remarkable. The circle throughout which this community of duty extended depended on the ecclesiastical laws relating to marriage. When the church prohibited the marriage of persons related within the seventh degree, then all relations within the seventh degree were involved in the quarrel of their feudal relative; but when the church limited the consanguinity to the fourth degree, the quarrel-circle, if we may coin such a term, was similarly limited. A private war could not be carried on between two full brothers, because both had the same common kindred, and consequently neither had any persons bound to stand by him against the other in the contest; but two brothers of the half-blood might wage war, because each of them had a distinct kindred. The vassals of each principal, in any private war, were involved in the contest, because by the feudal maxims they were bound to take arms in defence of the chieftain of whom they held, and to assist him in every quarrel; as soon, therefore, as feudal tenures were introduced, and this artificial connexion was established between the baron and the vassal, vassals came to be considered in the same state with relations, so far as concerned private war. EXEMPTION FROM TAXES. When the feudal system was at its height, the modern practice of every one, high and low, contributing towards the expenses of carrying on the government, was not acted on. Kings and barons all collected together such wealth as was at command, generally by virtue of the strong arm, without following any recognized and well-ordered plan. The kings of France and of Lombardy supplied the com mon expenses of their courts from their demesne lands; and even Charlemagne, powerful as he was, was necessitated to regulate the economy of his farms with the most minute attention. The main portion of their revenue was derived from free gifts made at the annual assemblies of the nation, from amercements paid by allodial possessors for default of military service, and from certain fines accruing in respect to judicial proceedings. When the feudal government prevailed in France, there seems to have been hardly any source of regular revenue besides the demesnial estates of the crown. It was, perhaps, quite as much from poverty as from tyranny, that the king acquired a kind of prescriptive right, during a journey, to be supplied with necessaries by the towns and abbeys which he visited. By debasing the coin, and by other indirect means, the kings, according to their power, increased their revenues, and also by exactions from the Jews; that remarkable people who were made the object of persecution among nearly all the nations of Europe. But these resources of government by no means superseded the necessity of more direct taxation. The kings of France exacted money from the farmers and inhabitants of towns within their domains, and in so doing they only acted as proprietors; for the barons took the same course in their own lands. Philip Augustus was one of the first monarchs who ventured on a wider grasp of kingly power. He deprived both his own vassals and their feudal tenants of a third part of their goods; but this arbitrary mode of taxing the feudal lords was not repeated; the feudal system was too strong for the monarchy in this respect, and his successors generally pursued a more cautious plan. Upon obtaining any contribution it was usual to grant letters patent declaring that it had been freely given, and was not to be adopted as a precedent at any subsequent period. Several of such letters are still extant, and afford evidence of the power of the feudal nobles to prevent taxation from falling upon themselves. LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE. 31 LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE. The feudal barons in many cases possessed a power so nearly allied to that of sovereignty, that the control of the real sovereign over them was extremely slight. It was not exactly a number of equals all struggling to obtain the mastery over each other, but a number of men subordinate to the monarch, and yet so powerful, that each was practically a monarch in his own domain. In legislative matters, therefore, the policy of a nation did not exhibit a combined and uniform system, but a collection of codes almost as numerous as the feudal barons themselves. The elucidation of this subject, however, will come more properly in a future page. CHAPTER IV. GRADATIONS OF RANK RESULTING FROM Serfs. Their miserable condition as Domestic Slaves. Their Origin. Voluntary Vassalage. Villeins. Their Origin. Distinctions between them and Serfs. Manumission of Serfs and Villeins. Beneficent Influence of Christianity. Free-men. Establishment of the Court-Baron.' Origin of Freehold' and 'Copyhold' Tenure. The Nobles. Their Origin. Origin of the terms 'Duke' and 'Count.' Privileges of the Nobles. Sirnames and Armorial Bearings. Restrictions with reference to Rank and Gentility. Gradations in Rank. General Respect paid to the Nobility. ONE of the many usages of civilized society, which we owe in a great measure to the feudal system, was the institution of nobility, or ranks and grades independently of the wealth or personal merit of the individual. Something of this kind has always existed; but under the feudal system it acquired an extent and stability which have brought it down to our own times. All our terms of rank, such as Duke, Marquis, Count, Viscount, Earl, Lord, Baron, Marshal, Baronet, Knight, Esquire, &c.—either originated in, or became extended by feudalism. Before the condition of the privileged classes can be understood, it will be necessary to speak of the humbler. During the ages when the feudal system prevailed, and when all allusions to agriculture and productive industry are extremely brief, as if such occupations were beneath the notice of honorable men, the cultivation of the ground was left to three classes of men, namely, serfs, villeins, and free-men, each of which was governed by peculiar laws, arising out of the existing state of society. |