The enlargement of Parlia ment. Knights. Gentle men. the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century2. In the reign of Henry III it seemed as if the Barons, under the leadership of the Earl of Leicester, would endanger the existence of the monarchy, and take the government into their own hands. But this was only a temporary encroachment, and soon afterwards the principle was once more established that the aristocracy were entitled to a definite influence on public affairs, and in particular to a share in legislation, but not to the exercise of the sovereign rights of government. Their political power was further limited by the enlargement of Parliament, through the addition of representatives of the towns and cities, and by the fact that the English knights were elected to Parliament by free tenants (libere tenentes), not, as on the continent, nominated by their own order. The nobility proper consisted entirely of the Lords: it never became a dynastic and territorial nobility as in France and Germany, but remained an estate of the realm (reichständischer Adel), exercising rights subject to the king and the law in the military and judicial system, as well as over their subtenants. The Knights, that is to say, free men in possession of knights' fees, whether held of the king or of nobles, assumed an influential position. They held the first place in the militia, and, as justices of the peace, were entrusted with a power of police and administration of justice. The representatives of the county in parliament were chosen from them. The association of their younger sons with the upper citizen class, and their parliamentary connection with the representatives of the towns, the honoratiores,' gave rise to the essentially modern conception of the Gentry, all who by birth or office, education or property, are distinguished as honoratiores from the masses. Unlike the gentilshommes in France, they are not a rigidly exclusive order, but an elastic aristocracy, daily receiving new accessions and occasionally rejecting unworthy members 3. 2 See Part II, Book ii, chap. 3. 3 Blackstone, Comm. i. 12, quotes with approval a passage from Sir Thomas spirit of the 4. There is a further characteristic of the English nobility Public which deserves special notice, as it marks an honourable dis- English tinction between them and the nobility of France, and in the nobility. main of Germany also. Even when the barons were the only political power in the State, they had in view something more than themselves and their own rights. They early felt their vocation as a national corporation to defend the rights and guard the freedom of the nation in the general interests of the public. Magna Charta contains many and important clauses to this effect. The political freedom of England is to a great extent their work. When this had been once firmly established, the higher aristocracy became a solid embankment against the streams of democracy: they exchanged the rôle of defenders of the national freedom for the less popular but equally useful task of defending the throne and established institutions (Statsordnung). Standing between the king and the mass of the people, not powerful enough to rule for themselves, and too independent to obey every impulse from below or every humour from above, they maintained the freedom and rights of both from encroachment and abuse. The English nobility have always taken an active and leading part in public duties. Their very education is permeated with the spirit of political freedom and personal independence. Party politics, their work as justices of the peace, their share in elections, in the county administration, and in juries, their voluntary societies and contributions for public purposes-all these forms of activity keep them in touch with the life of the people and train them in the duties of selfgovernment and patriotic service 4. Smith. [As for gentlemen they be made good cheap in this kingdom, for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the Universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and, to be short, who can live idly and without manual labour, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.'] Cf. Gneist, Englische Verfassungsgeschichte, p. 621 ff. De Tocqueville, Œuvres, viii. p. 328. [Bluntschli here seems to be thinking chiefly of the county gentry, whom he regards as a lower nobility.] * See Gneist, op. cit., and De Tocqueville, Euvres, viii. The Peerage con fined to one heir. Marriage. New Creations. 5. The hereditary principle in the case of the English lords became a rule of public law, though not in so absolute and exclusive a form as on the continent. At first the right of inheritance as well as the privilege of peerage was closely connected with occupation of the soil or with office. Peerage had a strictly territorial character. But later this connection. was severed, and peerage was transmitted by inheritance as a personal dignity. But this early association of the peerage with a definite estate, castle or office gave rise to the important principle that only one of the sons or relatives of the deceased lord could take his place in parliament. By the principle of primogeniture only one son became a lord, the others received a lower rank, and were excluded from the upper nobility. Not only are younger sons of a lord in law merely 'esquires,' but even the eldest son in his father's life-time is only called 'Lord' by courtesy. Thus, on the one hand, the dignity and wealth of the great families remained concentrated in one head, while on the other hand the easy transition from one class to another served to minimise the distinctions of birth 5. 6. Further, a Peer was not bound to marry into a noble family. The wife of a Lord is a Lady, whether she comes from the citizen class or no. This principle has not lessened the dignity of the nobility, while it has done far more to secure it from attack than the caste-like principle of equality of birth, to which the German nobility cling so closely. 7. Finally, the Peerage was from time to time enlarged and enlivened by the creation of new peers. The privilege of creating them was reserved for the king as 'the source of all political honours.' He alone could add new members to the nobility and confer the rights of a peer upon them, with the title of Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, or Baron. But in the Macaulay, Hist. of England, i. p. 37: 'It had none of the invidious character of a caste. It was constantly receiving members from the people and constantly sending down members to mingle with the people... The yeoman was not inclined to murmur at dignities to which his own children might rise. The grandee was not inclined to insult a class into which his own children must descend.' Blackstone, Comm., i. 12. nature of things this political dignity was only conferred on men who had distinguished themselves by their public services as generals or statesmen, and who possessed or now received enough property to satisfy the claims of their position. This constant supply of new and really aristocratic forces saved the English aristocracy from the danger of stagnation and incapacity. The ablest and most gifted men in the nation could thus look forward to raising themselves and their families by their public service to the sunny heights of political life. Thus, from 1700 to 1800, 34 dukes, 29 marquises, 109 earls, 85 viscounts, 248 barons were created. At the same time more than 500 baronetcies were conferred. At the present day rich citizens who buy large estates in the country, count among the country gentry, though without a title of nobility". If we now look as a whole at these characteristics of the English aristocracy, we need not wonder why it alone has preserved its existence undisputed, and continues to occupy a useful and brilliant place in the constitution, while in every continental country the aristocracy have either entirely disappeared, or maintain only a struggling and precarious existence. 7 Gneist, op. cit., p. 620. De Tocqueville, viii. 319. CHAPTER XII. a. Princes, secular and ecclesiastical. IF C. THE GERMAN NOBILITY. I. PRINCES. F we look at the history of the German nobility we find everywhere a number of distinguished families, raised above all other free men by military fame, by wealth or popular leadership, and in fact occupying a princely position. This ancient nobility of race (Stammesadel), often confined to a few families, was the foundation of the dynastic or princely nobility of the middle ages (Hoher Adel, Herrenadel, Standesherren). The lower nobility of knighthood was a growth of the middle ages. The position of the Princes, the highest secular class, was closely connected with the constitution of the Empire. The families whose heads had risen to the highest rank of independence and sovereignty were counted hochfrei, sendbarfrei, semperfrei. From the end of the twelfth century, only those secular lords counted as princes of the Empire who held at least a Countship in fief from the king, and were not vassals of any other temporal lord. But only the heads of these princely families were regarded as properly lords (Herren). The status was dormant in the case of the other members of the family: they were only companions (Genossen) of the princes and lords. This high status in the Empire depended on : The office of Prince (Fürstenamt), that is originally on the ducal military power, which was conferred along with a banner. By the side of the secular princes (Dukes, Margraves, and |