Liberty, this Oath was taken to the Emperor, as Commander-inchief; but the Clause in favour of the Senate and People was omitted. Instead of being limited to the Soldiers, the oath was extended to all magistrates and citizens, and ultimately to the provincials. And thus, the Roman Emperors had unlimited power, both by the accumulation of all civil authority in their persons, and by the military authority thus declared.

902 Accordingly, the Emperor had legislative as well as executive power. The Roman Jurists say, "Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem, utpote quum Lege Regia quæ de Imperio ejus lata est, Populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat." Religious as well as Civil authority was given to the Emperor; a sacredness and a kind of divinity were ascribed to him. After Christianity became the Religion of the Roman State, high religious dignity was still attributed to the imperial condition. In imitation of the Jewish kings, he was anointed with oil, and consecrated by a priest; he was declared to hold his crown by the Grace of God, and was spoken of as the Vicar of Christ over Christian people. And thus, the monarchical office was elevated to a transcendent supremacy and ideal perfection; it was the Source of Order, Justice, and Right; and absorbed and superseded all other powers and Rights which had existed in the Constitution.

903 Very different from this view of the chief ruler of the State, was that which prevailed among the northern nations who gradually took possession of the provinces of the Roman Empire. In the most considerable of the Germanic tribes, the form of Government was republican. Some of these had a Chief, to whom the Romans gave the name of King; but his authority was very limited. The Supreme Authority of the nation resided in the Freemen of whom it was composed. When a national war was undertaken, one of the Chiefs was selected to command the army, but his authority expired with the return of peace. But when these tribes settled as conquerors in the Roman provinces, they adopted, in many respects, the customs and the legal language of those whom they subjugated. The superiority of the Romans over the Barbarians in intellectual and literary culture, the advantages attendant upon fixed laws, and laws already fixed, strongly promoted this result. And after a time, the servility of men's

$ 7.

*

Dig. 1. 4. Inst. I. 2. § 6. Gaius, I. "The command of the Emperor has the force of Law; for by the Royal Law

respecting his authority, the People gives to him and confers upon him all its authority and power."

language infected their thoughts; and the subjects of the kingdoms which arose out of the empire not only spoke but in some measure thought of their King, as the Romans had been accustomed to do of their Emperor.

904 But there was another especially Germanic element, which modified the feelings of men towards their Chief. Every German Chief had a band of Followers, who had voluntarily attached themselves to him*. From him they had received their recognized place as warriors; at his table they feasted; to his service they were devoted. In war, he fought for victory, they for their chief. But they received from him occasional presents, as horses and weapons. From an ancient Teutonic word signifying their trustiness to him, they were called Antrustiones. They were also called the Chief's Vassi, his young men, or his ment: as the act of a person declaring himself a superior's man was afterwards called homage, by a derivative from the Latin homo. This connection was regarded as the most sacred which could subsist between one man and another. The usage of this personal connexion the Germans carried with them into the countries which they subdued, and it became one of the chief bonds of political union in the Governments which they established. The connexion was commonly confirmed by an oath, promising fidelity, fealty or allegiance, on the part of the inferior, and sometimes, by an oath promising protection and justice on the part of the superior. The feelings connected with this ancient relation of superior and inferior have given a peculiar character to loyalty towards a Sovereign, as conceived in modern times.

905 But there was another important element which entered into the constitution of that Feudal System, which was established on the ruins of the Roman Empire. The Chiefs appropriated to themselves districts of the conquered territory; and they granted portions of these their possessions to their followers, the obligation of reciprocal fidelity and protection being connected with this tenure of land. The Chief and his followers became the Seignior and his Vassals. The lands thus granted were termed Benefices (Beneficia,) and afterwards Fiefs (Feuda). They were held by military service‡. Those who thus held benefices or fiefs

Tacit. De Morib. Germ. Cap. XIV. This derivation of the word rassalus, adopted by Sir Francis Palgrave, makes it come from the Celtic word gwas or was. Another derivation deduces it from the Teutonic word geselle, companim. M.

Guizot inclines to believe that it comes from gast, guest. He finds vassus used in old documents apparently as equivalent to conviva. Essais sur l'Hist. de France, p. 102.

Some writers discern in the prac

often granted portions of them to inferior Vassals on the like condition of military Service; and this Subinfeudation of Vassals and Arrière Vassals was continued through several degrees. The subordinate holders of feudal benefices possessed some of the privileges of feudal lords. In the course of time, Fiefs became hereditary.

906 Thus the Feudal System was established; and gave to the relation between the Governors and the Governed a new form. Instead of the single transcendental authority of the Roman Empire, before which all Liberty was annihilated, there was, along with Monarchy, a Military Aristocracy, in which the Superiors and Inferiors, from the Sovereign downwards, had mutual Rights and Obligations, of Protection and Service; and in which there were, therefore, for them, Elements both of Order and of Liberty.

The lowest

907 It is true that this Order and this Liberty were very imperfect, being only such as are maintained in a state of peace which is looked upon as subordinate to a state of war. members of the Feudal System were liable to great oppression. Moreover, the peaceable part of the community, the inhabitants of towns, and generally, those who had no place in the army, were not provided for in this System. So far as they were concerned, there was no Security and no Liberty. Hence, from this time, the struggle between Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, takes a new form. We have the Feudal Aristocracy in conflict with the Imperial Doctrine of absolute Regal Power; and we have the Burgher Democracy in conflict with the Feudal Aristocracy and the Monarchy.

908 Our own country exhibits to us an exemplification of these conflicts. The Feudal System was fully established in England by the Norman Conquest; but the Conqueror gave to it a more monarchical character than it elsewhere had, by requiring, not only those who held in chief of the Crown, but also their tenants, to swear personal fealty to the King. On the other

tices of the Roman Empire itself the germ of this element of the Feudal System, the tenure of land by military Service. Even while the empire was only commencing, Sylla and Augustus assigned lands to their Veterans; and a little later, lands were granted to the Limitanean or Ripuarian Soldiery, on condition of defending the boundaries of the empire. These were commanded by the Dukes and Counts of the Provinces. Under Constantine, the Count of the Saxon Shore ruled from Nor

folk to Sussex, while the Duke of Britain governed the remainder of Britain. These military Counts and Dukes were the Magistrates, as well as the Commanders of the Soldiery. The Military, so organized, constituted a distinct and ruling Class, both in consequence of their privileges, and of the right which they exercised of electing an Emperor upon some occasions. They were, in short, a Military Aristocracy.

Right of the Commons to inquire into public abuses, and to impeach the King's Counsellors.

912 From this time, the importance of Parliament was shown by its becoming the battle-field of conflicting Parties in the State. In the Reign of Edward the Second, it was not Parliament, but the Barons, who had the principal share in opposing the Government. But in the end of Edward the Third's reign, an opposition, headed by the Prince of Wales, urged their grievances by means of the Petitions and proceedings of Parliament. And Richard the Second, the son of this Prince of Wales, after a reign full of contests with his Parliaments, in which he repeatedly promised redress of grievances in return for Subsidies which they voted him, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and Henry the Fourth was acknowledged King in 1399.

913 In the reigns of the three kings of the House of Lancaster (Henry IV. V. and VI.) the powers of the Parliament to protect the Liberty of the Nation were more fully unfolded. The exclusive Right of taxation by Parliament was maintained, and their Right also to direct and check the public expenditure. They exercised the Right of making their supplies depend upon the redress of grievances; they secured the people against illegal ordinances and interpolations of Statutes; they controlled the royal administration in matters of peace and war; they punished bad ministers; and finally, they established immunity of person, and liberty of speech, for themselves in their parliamentary capacity. Some of the most eminent maxims of parliamentary law were established in this period: for instance, that the Commons possess the exclusive Right of originating Money Bills; and that the King ought not to take notice of matters pending in Parlia

ment.

914 Under these circumstances, the election of Members of Parliament became a very important Duty and Privilege of Englishmen. It was in the eighth year of Henry VI. that the Elective Franchise of Voters for Counties was determined to belong to freeholders of lands or tenements of the value of forty shillings. The proper Constituents of the Citizens and Burgesses sent to Parliament appear to have been Chartered Boroughs, and Towns belonging to the demesne of the Crown, and all places of eminent wealth and importance, even though not incorporated. But probably no Parliament ever perfectly corresponded with this Rule.

915 Thus, many centuries ago, a Constitution was esta

blished in England, in which Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, balanced and controlled each other. There were many Institutions, Laws, and Customs, which were a security against arbitrary power; protecting both the rights of the Commons and of the Nobility; while yet the Government, in its whole tone and character, was Monarchical. In the language of the Law, all seems to grow out of the King, and is referred to his advantage and benefit. The voice of the Commons towards the Crown was, in its form, humble and deferential. The royal prerogative was always named in large and pompous expressions. This monarchical tone still more pervades our law-books. Hence perhaps it is, that some writers, as Hume, have fallen into the mistake of believing that the limitations of royal power in this country, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were unsettled, both in law and in public opinion. But the gradual development of the constitutional practices of parliament, in the way we have described, shows that there was nothing unsettled or ambiguous in their general character, as real securities of the National Liberty.

916 Accordingly, the English Constitution is described as free, and is put in contrast to despotic governments, by intelligent writers of those times. Sir John Fortescue, who was Chief Justice of the King's Bench under Henry VI., and afterwards Governor to the young Prince of Wales, wrote a Treatise, entitled, "Of the difference between Absolute and Limited Monarchy," in which the English Government is his example of a Limited Monarchy. He also wrote a Treatise "De Laudibus Legum Angliæ," in which he inculcates this doctrine upon his royal pupil: "A King of England cannot at his pleasure make any alteration in the Laws of the Land: for the nature of his government is not regal, but political [or, in more modern phrase, not absolute, but constitutional]. Had it been merely regal, he would have had a power to make what innovations and alterations he pleased in the laws of the Kingdom, impose tallages and other hardships upon the people, whether they would or no, without their consent; which sort of Government the Civil Laws point out, when they declare Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem. But it is otherwise with a king whose government is constitutional; because he can neither make any alteration or change in the laws of the realm without the consent of the subjects; nor burthen them against their will with strange impositions; so that a people governed by such Laws as are made by their own consent and appro

H H