Anglo- ment. The king. inestimable service in elucidating much that was previously obscure in this branch of historical enquiry. The student of political history will find in their works ample materials to aid him in forming an intelligent idea of the fundamental laws and established institutions of this country in the earliest days of our national life. And these writers are all agreed in testifying that, however striking may be the contrast, in many points of detail, between the primitive form of government in the time of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers and that which now prevails, 'the germs alike of the monarchic, the aristocratic, and the democratic branches of our constitution will be found as far back as history or tradition throws any light on the institutions of our race.'d In common with other tribes of similar Teutonic origin, the Saxons in England, from a very early period, were ruled over by kings, whose power was not arbitrary and despotic, but was subjected to certain well-defined limitations, by the supreme controlling authority of the law. The dignity, authority, and power of the chief ruler in England was gradually developed from that of an ealdorman (who combined in his own person the functions of a civil ruler and of a military chieftain) into that of a kinga change that is not peculiar to our own land, but which marked the progress of political society elsewhere, in countries inhabited by the Teutons and other kindred peoples. The transition from ealdorman to king brought with it an accession of power to the ruler. As the territory over which his headship was recognised expanded, his royal dignity and importance increased. The early Teutonic constitution, when transplanted into English soil, was, like that of many of the small states of the Old World, essentially free. It consisted of a supreme leader, with or without royal title, an aristocratic council, composed of men of noble birth, and a general assembly of freemen, in whom the ultimate sovereignty resided.' By degrees, however, the primitive democracy of the ancient Teutonic communities gave place to the rising influ- The nobles. ence of the comitatus, or personal following of the chiefs. And in proportion as the kings of England advanced in strength and dominion they naturally acquired a more complete supremacy over their comitatus. The thanes, or body-servants of the king, were gradually invested with rank and power in the kingdom. Thus there arose a new kind of nobility, virtute officii, which at length obtained precedence over the elder hereditary nobles." Other elements combined to magnify the authority of the chief ruler: such as the growth of feudalism—under which lands were held by the tenure of military service due from the vassal to his lord-and the control assumed by the king over the lands of the nation. At first the 'folkland' could only be alienated by the king, with the consent of his Witan. But after the Norman Conquest, the folkland was called the terra regis, or king's land, when the king claimed the right of granting it at his own pleasure, and without the sanction of Parliament." mot. But the power of the crown was, from the first, sub- The jected to the control of the Witenagemot, or 'Meeting of Witenagethe Wise Men,' which appears to have formed part of the national polity of the Teutons, from their earliest appearance in history, and was introduced by them into the Saxon commonwealth. Originally a democratic assembly, Freeman describes the process by which this popular council, without the formal exclusion of any class of its members, gradually assumed an aristocratic aspect,' without losing any of its essential powers. Under the Heptarchy, every separate king in England had his own Witenagemot; but after the other kingdoms were merged 'Freeman, vol. i. pp. 86-90. Ibid. pp. 91-97. i Kemble, vol. ii. pp. 185-195. The Witans. into that of Wessex, their respective Witans became entitled to seats in the Gémot of Wessex, as being the common Gémot of the realm. Our knowledge as to the constitution of these great councils, in any English kingdom, is extremely vague and scanty. But we have proof that the great officers of the court and of the kingdom were invariably present in the Witenagemot, together with ealdormen, bishops, abbots, and many other of the king's thanes. There was also an infusion of the popular element, by the attendance of certain classes of freemen, though to what extent and in what manner this took place cannot be positively determined. But, howsoever composed, it is undoubtedly true that the Witenagemot was an institution which afforded to the English nation a remarkable amount of liberty and protection. 2. The powers of the Witenagemot have been defined, by Kemble, as follows:- 1. First, and in general, they possessed a consultative voice, and right to consider every public act which could be authorised by the king. They deliberated upon the making of new laws which were to be added to the existing folcriht, and which were then promulgated by their own and the king's authority. 3. They had the power of making alliances and treaties of peace, and of settling their terms. 4. They had the power (subject to the restriction hereinafter mentioned) of electing their king. 5. They had the power to depose the king, if his government was not conducted for the benefit of the people. 6. They had the power, conjointly * Kemble, vol. ii. p. 237. And see the First Report of the Lords' Committee appointed to search the Journals of the House of Lords, Rolls of Parliament, &c., for all matters touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, p. 17. Learned and elaborate reports were presented to the House by this Committee in the years 1819 to 1825, which were reprinted in 1829. The First Report, from which alone our citations are made, treats of the constitution of the legislative assemblies of England, from the Conquest to the legislative unions with Scotland and Ireland. It will be found in the Lords' Papers for 1829, No. 117. It is cited in this chapter, as First Lords' Report. 7. with the king, of appointing prelates to vacant sees. office. In asserting that the king was elected by the Witan, The kingly and was subject to be deposed by their authority, it must not be inferred that the Anglo-Saxon state was, either in spirit or in form, an elective monarchy, in the modern acceptation of the term. In every Teutonic kingdom there was a royal family, out of which alone, under all ordinary circumstances, kings were chosen; but within that royal family the Witan of the land were privileged to exercise choice. The eldest son of the last king was considered as having a preferential right; but if he were too young, or were otherwise objectionable, some other and more capable member of the royal family would be chosen instead. Again, the recommendation of the king himself as to his successor on the throne had great weight, and was usually respected. On every occasion, indeed, the right to the kingly office must be substantiated and confirmed by a competent tribunal. But in so doing the members of the great council are not national representatives, offering the empire to a candidate whom their voices have raised to authority; but they are the "Witan," 'Kemble, vol. ii. pp. 204-232. Powers of the Witan. 6 the judges, whose wisdom is to satisfy the people that their allegiance is demanded by their lawful sovereign.' Though we cannot adopt the theory that the AngloSaxon empire was elective, we arrive, however, at the conclusion that it was governed by law. The Constitution required that the right of the sovereign should be sanctioned by a competent tribunal.' Thus, the inchoate title of the sovereign was confirmed by the national assent, and his claim was to be recognised by the legislature. In this sense,' says Sir Francis Palgrave, 'the king was said to be elected by the people.'" In like manner, the extreme right of deposing their sovereign, which the law assigned to the Witan, was one that was obviously to be resorted to only in cases of emergency, when the conduct of the reigning monarch had made him intolerable to the people. The exercise of this power by the Witan was an event of very rare occurrence, but examples are to be found, both before and after the Norman Conquest, of the deposition of kings by Act of Parliament." From this it will be seen that the powers of the Witenagemot far exceeded those assigned by law to modern legislative bodies, or exercised, in conformity with constitutional practice, by the House of Commons at the present day. Every act of government of any importance was done, not by the king alone, but by the king and his Witan.' The Witan had a right to share, not merely in ordinary acts of legislation, but even in matters of prerogative and administration which are now considered as exclusively appertaining to the crown.° It might reasonably be anticipated that such a polity would unavoidably give rise to frequent collisions between the king and his parliament, and such undoubtedly was the case after the Norman Conquest, when the power of |