Full text of "The advantages and disadvantages of the feudal system, a prize essay"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

1^: i^-.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Feudaf
System,

A PRIZE ESSAY

RB&D IN

THE SHELDONIAN THEATRE, OXFORD;
JUNE 28,1843.

BY HENRY BOOTHBY BARBY,

MICHEL SCHOLjiB OF QUBXh'b COLLEGE.

OXFORD:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT.

1843.

ARGUMENT.

Various opinions on the Feudal System — importance of the in-
stitution — the standard by which it must be estimated.

The Feudal System viewed in itself and in its own times — consi-
dered in its principles — as a form of society — ^in its particular effects,
on natural defence, on social order, and the administration of justice,
on the increase and difiiision of wealth, and on the social state of the
population at lai^e. — Some advantages separately considered — General
estimate of its effects on its own times.

The Feudal System considered in reference to general civilization —
difficulty of this view — cautions — ^how far an institution is good which
\9 adapted to its own times. — Alleged beneficial effects of the Feudal
System on general civilization — beneficial consequences of its decay
— general view of its influence on the progress of society — notice of
Important questions — concluding remarks.

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

CeB lolz qui ont &it dee biens et des maux infinis ■

Montesquieu, Esprit des Una!, liy. zxx. c. 1.

No political institution has been so variously represented varions

* " '- opinions on

as the Feudal System. Some have viewed it as an almost fc^Sf **
ideal form of society, which affprded scope for the exercise
of the best feelings of human nature, and in which men
were influenced, not by considerations of interest, but by
sentiments of honourable obligation. Over this, as over
other past institutions, " poetry," to use the expression x)f
Niebuhr, " has flung her many-coloured veil r**^ but it is not
merely in writings of fiction that the illusion it has pro-
duced may be discerned. The beautiful theory of feudalism
thus presented, has almost imperceptibly impressed itself
even upon men of practical abilities, who in serious writing
have drawn pictures of "the dignified obedience,'** * of the
" manly sentiment," and "heroic enterprise" of feudal times.
Yet these representations, though they have indeed some
basis, have been greatly overdrawn, and seem, on strict in-
vestigation, to rest on little historical authority. *^" Like
enchanted castles, they appear to be something, they are
nothing but appearances ; and when we examine the founda-
tions on which they lean, the charm is dissolved, and they

* These are the actual expressions of Burke, in his Work on the French
Revolution ; but reference is not so much made to any particular passage, as
to the general tone of eulogy in which he describes feudal times.

*» Bolingbroke. Study of History, letter i. ad fin.

Tanish from the sight.'*" There are also writers,^ parti-
cularly those of the last century, who, taking a very dif-
ferent view, have stated that the Feudal System occasioned
general anarchy; and while it stripped the crown of almost
every prerogative, reduced the people to a state little better
than slavery.

The Feudal System is described by others^ as having
done infinite good and infinite mischief, and as having been
productive of the most opposite effects, — of rule with a
tendency to anarchy — of anarchy with a tendency to order
and harmony. But of late years, a kind of revulsion of
opinion has taken place ; and several writers of the present
day do not so much consider the effects of feudalism upon
its own times, but rather, in shewing its merits, direct our
attention to its influence upon the progress of society.
Importance It is difiicult to decide upon these different opinions, and

of the insti-
tution, to estimate the real advantages and disadvantages of the

Feudal System. Yet to do so is of the utmost interest ;
" for * this institution makes a very important part of the
history of mankind,"" and, singular in its character, stands
alone and unparalleled in the annals of the world. Attempts
Jiave been made, but without success, to prove that it re-
sembles several institutions of antiquity. ^ '^ Thus,"" to use
the words of Sir Henry Spelman, " may fancy couple the
remotest of things."' The Feudal System occupies the
most prominent place in the progress of events in Western
Europe after the dissolution of the Roman Empire ; and
the institution itself, although it had long begun to decay,
has been but recently removed. Less than two hundred

« Robertson. ^ Montesquieu, Esprit, des loix. liv. zzz. chap. 1.

• Expression of Dr. Johnson's. Boswell^ Life, ii. 191.
' Feuds and Tenures, chap. xi.

years have elapsed since its formal abolition in England;'
in Scotland it continued till the middle of the last century ;
and in France it was only destroyed when all other institu-
tions perished with it. Some countries,** even in the pre-
sent day, still formally adhere to many of its customs, and
continue to resist their abolition. That vast structure,
which once embraced within it the whole of Western
Europe, has at length fallen: yet its remains lie not in
scattered ruins; but, like the temples of Athens, have been
built up into the very fabric of modern civil constitutions.
For the results of the Feudal System have so pervaded the
whole frame of society, that it is difficult to find any im-
portant laws, customs, or institutions which it has not
more or less affected. To consider, therefore, the advantages
and disadvantages of feudalism, is not only the investiga-
tion of a subject of great historical importance, but also an
inquiry of present and almost of personal interest.

But by what standard are the merits of the Feudal standard

^ by wbi«'h it

System to be estimated ? An institution may be viewed, 5S5It5. ^
either in itself and in its own times, or with reference to its
influence upon the progress of society. Although no com-
plete estimate of the merits of an institution can be formed
without taking into account its effects upon general civiliza-
tion, yet it must be viewed alone to discover in what
manner it produced those effects. For by the dispensa-
tions of Providence, the eventual good of society is pro-
moted, as well by present evils as by present benefits.
Yet> as far as good and evil appear to result from man^s
agency and support, the one must be approved of, and the
other condemned. The Feudal System, considered in itself,
may be viewed either in its principles, or as a form or con-

» 2 Car. II. c. 24. i> Canada.

btitution of society, or in its particular effects upon the
social state ,of its own times. In its principles : for institu-
tions as well as individuals must proceed upon certain prin-
ciples ; and it is upon their character that the durability and
e£5cacy of an institution in a great measure depend. As a
form of society : for feudalism was not only a great institu-
tion^ but also became a system of social union ; which, as it
is contradistinguished from all other forms of political
society, deserves to be considered with particular attention.
In its particular effects: for it is by their nature only
that a judgment can be formed of the actual influence
of the principles and constitution of feudalism upon the
state of society. In regarding the relation of the Feudal
System to the progress of society, it must be inquired
whether it promoted or retarded the advances of civi-
lization. By civilization^ is here meant, both the ame-
lioration of society at large, and the improvement of man
individually. After having viewed the Feudal System in
this manner, it will be necessary to state the general re-
suit ; and from a comparison of its advantages and disad-
vantages, to decide as well upon its nature and effects
when considered in itself, as when regarded in reference to
the progress of society.
The Feudal Qu examination, it will be found that the Feudal System

Sydtem *"

TteeT/an? practically proceeded upon erroneous principles. One of
^es.°^ these principles was the substitution of an obligation,
founded upon a tenure of land, for that duty which a sub-
ject naturally owes to his sovereign ; another, the annexing
to some subjects that homage and that obedience which are
Considered duc to the suprcmc powcr alone. That this was the case

in its prin<

cipiei. appears from the fact, that the immediate tenant only held

_ «

> Guizot^s Civilization in Europe, lecture i.

himself bound to obey his supreme lord to the extent of tfa^
conditions on which he held his fief ; and considered that he
was released from obedience to his sovereign, and even
entitled to wage war against him, whenever the conditions
of. the agreement were not performed on his part. It may,
indeed, be objected, that as the vassal and feudatory were
at first distinct, the vassal was bound to obey his lord by
another obligation besides that which arises from the
tenure itself. But even granting that the feudal tenure
and vassalage were at first separate, which appears to be
doubtful, it is plain that the obligation to obey the sove-
reign was eventually considered to arise from the agree-
ment on which the tenure of land was held. This connec-
tion between the subject and the sovereign is perfectly in
unison with the spirit and tenor of the barbarian laws;
which, as they annexed fines to the commission of crimes,
offered a compensation for the performance of duty. Even
admitting that the relation between the sovereign and his
subject was at first political as well as feudal, it in the
course of time certainly became solely feudal. For so-
ciety cannot be conducted upon two dificrent principles
affecting the same points. The introduction of a new
ground of action presupposes the defect of the existing
principle ; and one must weaken, if not eventually destroy
the other. This substitution was indeed useful at first, as
forming a stronger bond of union than that which pre-,
viously existed; but its establishment, as it kept out of
view, if not suppressed, great social principles, was wrong
in itself, and also productive of disastrous effects. The
obligation of a citizen to obey the head of the state to
which he belongs, is a simple and natural principle, and
fipon it states and governments are at first founded, and

afterwards proceed. Any exchange for ibis principle, or
even the adoption of any bond which may absorb or di-*
minish its force, however honourable in appearance and
beantiful in theory, ultimately fails of eiSPect. They are
snbstitutions, in a great measure, of feeling or of interest for
duty, and like them are consequently not of a permanent
character. To those who at the time promoted and de-
fended the preyalence of the Feudal System, as far as any
institution may be -said to be designedly promoted and de-
fended, this superadding of obligations, no doubt, appeared
to eonfer an additional strength on the constitution of the
state. And it cannot be denied, that the tenure of land on
common grounds of right, a9 forming a common property,
tended to unite the privileged orders of feudal society. But
what is now considered, is the effect produced by this ad-
ditional obligation on the obedience paid by the subject to
the sovereign, and consequently upon the promotion of
civil order and tranquillity. This effect, as appears from
the consideration of the nature of the feudal pbligation
and its consequences, was very prejudicial. Such was, and
ever will be, the result of a faithless attempt to strengthen
the bonds of natural duty by the ties of artificial obliga-
tion. So strong, and yet so delicate, are the feelings of
duty in the human heart, that the slightest suspicion of
their power weakens their influence, and a total disbelief
of their existence almost destroys them.

The most striking feature of the Feudal obligation is,
that it indicates a direct compact between the immediate
tenant and his supreme lord. The assertion that there
exists a general compact between the sovereign and his
whole people, has been by many strongly condemned ; and
its origin has been vainly attempted to be found in the

^arly stages of society. But if the statement of the exists
ence of a general compact has been thought dangerous,
hovr much more pernicious must appear the actual establish*
ment of many private contracts between the immediate
tenants individually and their sovereign. The conditions
of a general compact are not often broken; and even when
they are broken, do not at once occasion the violation of
the peace of a nation. For the infringement of the rights
and privileges of the community, as it may not immediately
affect individual interest and feeling, but rarely endangers
the tranquillity of society. But a direct contract with an
individual, on certain understood conditions, is the personal
and immediate concern of that individual; and the infringe-
ment, or even the apprehended or fancied infringement of
those conditions, will lead at once to resistance on his part.
Thus the respect due to the sovereign, as the personifica-
tion of the state, was changed into that limited and dis-
trustful regard paid by a man to his Superior in a matter
of bargain and of mutual compensation. Thus was pro-
moted the custom of private war against the sovereign, and
of individual resistance to authority. It is strange, that
the existence of private war should have been an object of
eulogy to some modem writers. It has been stated, that
this practice was one of the chief Causes of the prevalence of
the notions of personal independence, and of civil liberty.
But it will be found, that the advantageous results of this
practice has been overrated, while its dangerous tendency
has not been so prominently put forward; and that its
advantages are not sufficient to excuse its erroneous character
and pernicious consequences. The custom of private war
tended, indeed, to animate with feelings of freedom the im-
mediate tenants of the crown; but was only very indirectly

and partially productive of personal independence am6n^
the vassals at large. The privileges of the arriere tenants^
though apparently analogous to those of their lords, seem
to have had in a great measure a mere nominal existence*
For the authority of the crown over lords who lived at a
distance, and who possessed the means of resistance, waa
necessarily much less than the control of those lords over
tenants among whom they lived, and who were company
tively powerless. The opposition of the head tenants to
the sovereign is often mentioned in history; but there are.
few if any instances on record, of the resistance of arriere
vassals to their immediate lord. Thus whatever influence
the example of the great lords may have had upon the
notions of their vassals, the custom of individual resistance,
and consequently personal independence, its advantageous
result, appear to have been confined to the immediate tenants
of the crown. This custom is wrong in itself, because the
principle of private resistance can never properly be recog-
nised in any state. Many indeed maintain as a right the
armed resistance of the whole community; but few, if any,
have asserted the right of individual opposition to authority,
and of private war; and such claims are condemned by the
practice of every state. Their pernicious consequences are
evident, in those disorders of society, and in that turbulence
of powerful men, which are the worst features of feudal
times. .The next wrong principle in the Feudal System,
was the annexing to some subjects that homage and that
obedience which are due to the sovereign power alone. The
arriere tenant held lands of his lord by the same tenure asi
that by which the lord held from his sovereign, and was
bound to perform the same services. On bended knees sub-
ject knelt, ungirt and with uncovered head, before fellow-

subject, and swore that he was from that day forth his man
of life, of limb, and of earthly worship. There was indeed
a clause in the oath saying the faith due to his sovereign
lord the king; but this was an exception that rarely
limited the influence of the lord over his immediate vassals.
Now it is wrong to invest any subject with that authority
which is the prerogative of the sovereign power alone.
The same obedience when paid to many, loses its hold upon
the mind, and may create conflicting obligations. It has
never been deemed slavery to pay allegiance to that autho-
rity to which the greatest as well as the meanest citizen
must submit; but it is degrading, and an injury to the
highest power in the state, to pay that allegiance to a fellow-
subject. The influence of the sovereign over his subjects
was thus weakened; for it was only in England, where the
preponderating power of the crown gave the king greater
authority, that the arriere vassal swore fealty also to his
supreme lord. This oath did not, however, give the king his
natural and legitimate control, but only a concurrent power
with the immediate lord. Whenever the services due from
the vassal to his immediate lord came into collision with
the fealty he owed to his sovereign, the former is found
to have almost uniformly prevailed. Hence the subfeuda-
tory followed the standard of the baron, almost as readily
when lead against his sovereign as when engaged in his
service.

That institution which vested in the crown the property
of all the land in the kingdom, although it appeared to give
the king an overwhelming power, tended in reality to di-
minish his legitimate influence. For while it represented
the sovereign as the supreme landholder^ it superadded to
the relation of king and of subject many obligations re-

snltiDg Bolelj from the feudal connection, the infringement
of which, as was commonly and practically held, ahsolved
the tenant from his allegiance. From the history of fendal
times it appears, that the lords had not only the power of
rebelling; but that also, by alleging some breach of the
feudal relation, they readily found a convenient pretext for
their conduct.

The principles, then, on which the Feudal System was
founded, and on which it proceeded, — ^the substitution, prac-
tically and eyentually, of the relation between feudal lord
and vassal, for that between sovereign and subject, and the
virtually paying to some subjects the allegiance due to the
sovereign power alone, — are erroneous in themselves, and
disadvantageous in their effects. These principles, as might
be shewn by a reference to the state of society at the
period, had an influence external to the institutions to which
they belonged. But this view, as it is not immediately
connected with the merits of the Feudal System, cannot at
present be entered upon.
Fendaiinn The Feudal System, viewed as a form of society, is the

considered

g^j^»^ next subject of consideration. For it must not only be re-
garded as a great institution, but also as a regular social
system ; since to subject to itself all the members of the
state was at first its natural tendency, and what it after-
wards accomplished. So that eventually, to use the words
of some writers, the feudal was substituted for the political
form of society. The Feudal System rather resembled a
military establishment, than any known civil institution ;
and was, in fact, originally the organization of an army,
stationed in companies throughout the country, and ranged
under its proper officers. The substitution of military
control for civil government, as it made the whole of the

population available for national defence, was at first per-*
haps advantageous to the new barbarian countries, subject
as they were to sudden attacks. But this form of society,
which could only be justified by immediate necessity, re-
mained, when the occasion for its existence had ceased. So
that even had the ideal theory of feudalism been ever
realized, the political constitution of the state would, with-
out any sufficient cause, have been exchanged for the or-
ganization of an army. But the system contained within
itself a natural tendency to degeneracy. The feudal lord
had, from immediate command and from local connection,
an almost exclusive and independent control over his
military tenants. Thus the power of the sovereign was
weakened by the comparative independence of his imme-
diate tenants ; and his connection with the great majority
of his subjects was almost destroyed. While in a military
form of society, exclusive honour was paid to the profession
of arms, the liberty of the rest of the community gradually
disappeared. In such a social system, every citizen was a
soldier ; so that all those who necessarily applied themselves
to agriculture and the arts were at first despised and treated
as inferiors, and at length sank into a condition little better
than slavery.

Feudal society was composed of a number of almost in«
dependent and separate powers, in a state of opposition
and conflict. Districts distinct from each other appear
scattered over the country, each subject to its own feudal
lord, and possessing its own civil and military jurisdiction.
Many of the lords had the privilege of coining money, and
claimed the right of private war. These districts seem
to have been almost regarded as foreign countries. ^If a

^ Robertsoirs Charles V., note 20. F F.

person removed from one province in a kingdom to another,*
he was bound, within a year and a day, to acknowledge
himself the vassal of the baron in whose territory he had
settled. The neglect of this was punished by a penalty,
and further neglect by a confiscation of goods. The most
striking features in such a system are the want of central
power, and the absence of national union. These two de-
fects, the natural results of a social state composed of so
many parts little under the control of the sovereign power,
n^ust be particularly noticed, as they appear to have been
the chief causes of the ill effects of feudalism, and also the
principles of its decay. The disadvantageous effects of the
Feudal System may be mainly traced to the separate pos-
session of power by many almost independent members of
the community, and to the state of division caused by dis-
tinct districts and local associations. It was only by the
acquisition of power by the state, as distinguished from its
individual members, and by the formation of national union,
both of which feudalism long obstructed, that the founda*
tions of the feudal system were gradually undermined. On
the importance of central power and of national unity, it
will be necessary to make a few remarks.

The necessity of the existence of an efficient central
power appears, from the consideration, that it only tends
fully to accomplish what seems to be the purpose of all so-
ciety, the procuring by combination those objects which
each man cannot himself individually obtain. There must
be some power in a state, wherever that power be vested,
which, rising above local interests, and seeing beyond local
views, perceives what is good for the society at large. And
it is only by such a power that measures for the good of
the community can be carried into effect: for there is

'ficarcely any plan for the general benefit, which is not tem-
porarily opposed to local interests. The presence of this
power is one of the chief causes of the flourishing condition
of many of the smaller states of antiquity. And it is to its
absence and gradual decay that the weakness of many
countries, and the dismemberment of great empires, may
be traced. And though it may be objected, that local di-
visions are useful as a check to central power, and as a
protection to liberty, yet the efficiency of this power ought
not to be always obstructed, because it is sometimes liable
to abuse. A distinction must be made between proper
checki^ and those which weaken and obstruct the energy of
the power they may oppose, especially when the efficient
exercise of that power is necessary to the well-being of the
community. The checks presented by the local divisions
under the Feudal System, were decidedly of the latter kind.
It may be stated, that the Feudal System, from its resem-
blance to a kind of federal union, combined, to a certain
extent, internal independence with national efficiency, and
was, at all events, well adapted for defence. Yet a federal
union is in general best adapted for defence only on some
extraordinary emergency, which, by combining the ener-
gies of its several parts, and by rousing a common feeling,
makes it for the time one united nation.

The same causes which obstructed the influence of central
power, also tended to prevent the formation of national
union. Local divisions, comparatively independent of the
central government, are great obstacles to the rise of common
interests, and to any general communication of opinions
and feelings. It is remarkable to what extent the advan-
tages of the Feudal System were enjoyed by each part of
society separately, and not by the community at large.

Liberty, for instance, as far as it existed among the higher
classes of feudal society, was not a common property, but
was Tested in each part of the community. It prevailed,
too, rather by separation than by combination; for the
formation of a general union was incompatible with the
existence of the independent parts of the Feudal System.
Thus what has been called the great advantage of the
Feudal System, and what was undoubtedly, to a certain ex-
tent, an advantage, was so misplaced, as to be productive
of the worst consequences. The elements of liberty, which
feudalism preserved in the possession of but few, were in-
dividual rather than social; and were so scattered over
separate parts of a country, and in such a state of conflict and
disunion, that the value of their preservation can scarcely
compensate for the insecurity and disorder they produced.
The same features of separation and of particular interests
may be seen in the disposition of judicial jurisdiction, and
of the other advantages of social union. Such a state of
society also hindered the spread of common opinions and
feelings ; for mutual interests are the chief causes of such a
communication. Thus was obstructed the progress of public
opinion, which, though sometimes perverted, is of great im-
portance, as generally exercising a salutary control over
private and public conduct. Feudalism also checked the
influence of public opinion, by at first gradually destroying
the middle class, and by afterwards preventing their rise;
for it is by the existence of an independent middle class,
that public opinion is rendered most efficient. Feudalism
at first destroyed the middle class : for, by the disadvan-
tages to which they were subject, it gradually obliged the
allodial proprietors to become feudal tenants; and afterwards
prevented their rise, by forbidding the alienation of land.

and by its tendency to check the progress of towns. This
obstruction to the rise of a middle class is also in many
other respects injurious to society. Among many other ad-
Tantages of the existence of such a class, it necessarily di-
minishes the number of the lower orders, facilitates the
means of rising in society, and establishes a gradual con-
nection between the highest and the lowest members of the
state. Against this view of feudalism it may be objected,
that the limits of countries ought not to be regarded as
natural and necessary ; and that, therefore, no institution
onght to be condemned because it tended to disunite them.
It may be said, that feudalism must not be estimated by
the notions of our own times respecting the predestination^
of a people to political union, and the necessary natural
unity of every state. But it must be remarked, that what
is here insisted upon is not the tendency of feudalism to
preyent those unions of states which form the countries of
the present day, but its tendency to cause disunion in any
state in which it exists. It is here observed, that the di-
vision which it produces is injurious to any country, what-
ever be its limits or extent ; and the necessity of national
unity to promote the efficiency, and to carry out the objects
of social combination, is maintained not as a notion of the
present time, but as what it appears to be in fact, a fixed
political principle. The Feudal System, therefore, considered
as a form of society, seems to have been very defective.
And its prominent faults were the substitution of a military
organization for the civil constitution of society, and its
great want both of central power and of national union.

To perceive the general influence of the Feudal System Particular

, , effects of

upon the state of society, it will be necessary to consider g'^te^"'**^

' ScfalegePs Philosophy of History, lecture xiii.

Bome of itB principal elSects ; and in remarking upon them,
the main object will be rather to notice their general
character, than to enter much into detail. The immediate
results of the Feudal System may be divided into — ^its effects
upon the external power, and its influence upon the internal
condition of a state. Of the effects of the Feudal System
upon the external power of the state, its influence npon
military strength and the efficiency of national defence, will
be now considered ; the chief effects of feudalism upon
the internal condition of a country, are its influence upon
the administration of justice and social order, upon com-*
merce and the diffusion of wealth, and upon the social and-
political state of the population at large.
mSitorT * ^^® Feudal System, by creating a combination for mutual
imd?a^ defence, did indeed appear to have at first secured the
fence. Original object of its establishment. Its advantage in this
respect may however be too highly estimated, unless it be
remembered, that it did not originally present the only
means of defence. For by the German customs, as pre-
vailing after the conquest of the Roman Empire, the ""duty
of freeholders to serve in war seems to have been acknow-
ledged, and readily performed. There were many com-
panies of these allodial proprietors, who, being more under
the control of the central power, appear to have formed a
more efficient force than did the bands of vassals led by the
feudal lords. Yet feudalism was not conducive to mili-
tary strength. Its army was a militia ; which, in time of
war, took the field for a limited period, under the command
of the same chieftain whom it was accustomed to obey in
time of peace. Such a force being an attempt to com-

°> << The obligation of bearing arms in defensive war was peculiarly incuml
bent on the freeholder, or allodialist. "—>^a//amV Middle Affes, c. ii. p. 11.

bine the ocedpation of a eiyiliaii with the employment of a
soldier, was comparatively inefficient, and much inferior to a
body of regular troops. Too free for soldiers, yet too submie*-
sive for citizens, the feudal retainers appear to have united
in themselves many of the disadvantages, with few of the
advantages of a military body. With much of the independ-
ence of citizens in active service, with much of the obe*
dience of soldiers at home, they were neither well fitted for
an army in the field, nor for a body of free subjects. Such
was the effect of the confusion of two characters properly
distinct, and of an attempt to purchase the comparative in*
dependence of the soldier by a corresponding submission in
the citizen. Such a system obstructed improvements in the
art of war, most of which were made after the establishment
of standing armies, by which the exclusive attention of a
body of men was directed to the study of military tactics.
But such improvements, as they give a civilized country a
great advantage over an uncivilized enemy, and eventually
tend to diminish the occurr^ice of war, must be regarded as
generally beneficial to society* The feudal institutions wera
not only themsdves little calculated to promote military
btiength, but also ptevented the organization of en efficient
native foree. To serve for pay those whom' they were
considered to follow from a feding of honourable obligation,
and instead of a service performed with comparative ease
imd limited in its duration, to submit to the permanent
discipline and hard toils of the hired soldier, would have
appeared alike burdensome and inconsistent with the
character of the finidal warri<Mr« The fmnation too of such
a force, at a time when feudidism was completely esta-
blished, as it would have necessarily dissolved the con-
nection between certain vassals and their lords, could

not haire been attempted without undemuoing the foun-
dations of the system itself. In feudal times, there was
no extensive establishment of hired native troops under the
direct command of the sovereign, and similar to modem
armies. Some notices indeed occur of vassals being kept
in service after the expiration of the usual period, at a
certain stipulated rate of pay. But this practice was, as
has been observed, inconvenient to the tenants ; and the
sovereign would most probably prefer securing the aid of
an efficient body of mercenaries, to merely prolonging the
time, without altering the nature of the service of his feudal
adherents. It is also well ascertained that this custom did
not prevail to any very great extent. The establishment
of paid native forces, whether regarded as the cause or as
the effect of the decay of the Feudal System, is evidently
inconsistent with it. This defect in feudalism led to the
employment of foreign mercenaries ; a measure ultimately
as prejudicial to the state, as it was at first temporarily
snccessAiI. It was well for the independence of feudal
countries, that they had to contend with no power whose
armies were composed of regular soldiers. Had such
been the case, they must, in all probability, unless they had
altered their system of warfare, have been reduced to sub-
jection. For unless when animated on an extraordinary
emergency by some strong common feeling, or so practised
in service as to be for the time on the footing of regular
troops, a militia has been invariably found to be inferior in
action to a standing army. This has been shewn*^ by
reference to the event of such contests as are recbrded in
ancient history. The same fact is also attested by nearly
all the battles of modern times : as, for instance, by the

I* Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, book v. chap. 1. part l»

fields of Cressj and Poictiers, where the paid forces of
Edward were opposed to the army of Philip, which was
almost entirely composed of feudal retainers. It was well
for the present state of society and for the cause of civi-
lization, that the feudal countries of the West of Europe,
after they had attained a certain degree of improyement,
were not attacked by a general barbarian invasion. For
nations which depend upon such a means of defence as
local bodies of militia, in proportion to their advances in
wealth and civilization, become more exposed to the
cupidity and less able to resist the attacks of barbarian
hordes. The natural superiority of the militia of a bar-
barian people over that of a civilized country is in itself
apparent, and has been proved by historical testimony.
If with such a system of defence as feudalism afforded, the
comparatively civilized countries of Europe in the middle
ages had been suddenly attacked by such barbarian tribes
|U8 still prevail in the North of Asia, they must, in all human
probability, have suffered, from the same internal cause, the
fate of that empire which they themselves overthrew. It is
only from the existence of standing armies that we have
good ground for supposing that the civilized nations of
modem times will not share the rujn of the great empires
of the ancient world, and fall by the attacks of barbarian
hordes.

( The effect of the Feudal System on social order and the Efrbcton
administration of justice, forms the next subject of con- order and

•' •'the admi-

sideration. Among the Germans, each chieftain was also o/ j^^
the judge of his followers ; and after the settlement of the
Northern races in Western Europe, judicial authority was
commonly combined with military power. The Feudal
System continued this practice, and there were conse-

^iMBtlyas mtiiy local covrts in varidui psris of the ooutitrj
as there were great feudal lords. The immediate judicial
authority of the sorereign was at first limited to his own
domains^ and he had little if any control oyer the courts of
his barons. In estimating therefore the effect of feudalisoi
jsn the administration of justice, it is necessary to consider
a judicial system conlposed of a number of comparatively
independent loeal oourts^ and to view itb iii^uence upon
aocial order. The few adrantages of such a system do not
B^em to be compensated by its many disadvantages.
A local court, whatever be its mode of procedure, has this
advantage, that its decision is often immediate^ and is con-
sequently attended with less expense and trouble. The
peculiar expenses of the feudal law must however be
considered, which, independently of fines^ amounted in
some places to the ® fifth of the property in dispute*
Another advantage of Uie baronial jurisdiction, though
rather beneficial in its results than in its immediate efiects,
was the summoning of vassals to Itttend and take part in
the decision of cases. In these respects, then, the insti-
tution of the feudal courts seems to have been beneficfaL
But when it is considered that this private and separate
jurisdiction was exercised, not in the name of the sovereign
or of the community at large, but claimed as a right by
each feudal lord, a different conclusion may be formed.
Th^ decision of each local court was at first final, and no
appeal could be made frotn it to the sovereign. The appeals
trfaich were {introduced after the progress of some time, were
limited to the reftisal or to the delay of justice ; and, on a^-
Ifouht of the great influence of the lords^ could not have beeb

<^ Sometimes even to the tbird. Du Change, voc. Fredum. Ail crimes
wene ptitiishM by fiM^, this Applied to etilMinal M well lUi to civil cases.

' ^

of mnch practieal efibct. So indepe&dent was ih^ jurifr-
diotion of these courts over their several distriots, that the
rojal judges were in many oases absolutely prohibited from
entering them. Even in England, where the regal power
was for some time much greater than in any other country,
the king^s judges could not, without a formal consent, enter a
county palatine. In Scotland, where the Feudal System had
more scope for developement, a feudal lord could, by the
privilege of repledging, stay any judicial proceedings oa
the part of the crown, and Qould even punish his vassal for
obeying a royal summons. This variety, and this inde-
pendence of local courts, often made the attainment of
justice very difficult ; as a vassal oould only be tried in his
own court, and was protected by his lord against any other
jurisdiction. Although an institution ought not generally
to be judged by its abuse, yet it may be so judged when
that abuse appears to be a likely and naturid consequence.
Of this kind was the injurious effect of committing great
judicial power to the feudal lords; a power which they
seem to have frequently perverted. For instance, we find
in Spelman,!* that it was a common practice for lords of
castles to imprison pien at pleasure : a practice which, he
observes, had not been even in his time altogether aban-
doned. But perhaps the most injurious effects of the
feudal jurisdiction were the variety of codes which prevailed,
and the consequent absence of one known and general law.
Different parts of the same country were subject, some to
the Roman law, and others to the diversified rules of
barbarian codes. It is even said, that a man had the
liberty of choosisg by what law he would be judged.

p SjMlnan on Pariiamentf.

This iBf however^ most probably % misstatement, originating
from the different procedures of the feudal courts, and ftom
the lords possibly having the power of deciding by what
roles their courts should proceed. But what was still
worse, was the prevalence of local customs instead of written
laws ; a practice at first the effect, and afterwards in its
turn one of the causes of the ignorance, even of the most
elementary parts of education so remarkable in the middle
ages. Independent local courts prevented the establish-
ment of one universal mode of procedure, not only by their
very existence, but also by the amount of knowledge
required on the part of the courts to apply a general law.
That these courts did not answer the ends of justice, is
affirmed by many writers, and appears from several con-
siderations. It was usual to receive the statements on oath
of the parties themselves. That this often led to the
perversion of justice seems to have been felt at the time :
for statutes were made, requiring these statements to be
corroborated by the sworn testimony of others; and sub-
sequent ordinances were issued, directing the oaths to be
taken in the most solemn manner. Succesedve laws,^ each
denoting the inefficiency of that which preceded it, required
persons to swear over the tombs of the dead, over the cross,
over an altar, over many altars in succession, and after
having received the Holy Communion. Judicial combats,
and all other appeals to the justice of heaven, although no
doubt in consonance with the spirit of the age, were at
least promoted by the uncertainty and injustice of existing
human courts.

The liberty of challenging even a judge, and the pre-

4 Du Gauge in voc. Sacramentum.

ference of ecclesiastical to civil jurisdiction, certainly shew
tlie opinion entertained of feudal decisions. The two cases
in which the right of appeal was at length obtained, the
denial or the delay of justice, deserve particular notice, as
they seem to imply that the courts were not always open
to all applicants. The celebrated declaration in Magna
Charta, '^ Nulli vendemus nulli negabimus aut differemus
rectum aut justitiam,^ is, as has been observed, a standing
testimony of the injustice of times which called for such a
protest. That crimes and disorders very generally pre-
vailed, and often went unpunished, may be seen in the
history of the times, and is confirmed by the singular prac-
tice that the judges, called " centenarii,^^ ^ were required to
swear, that they had neither committed nor abetted any
robbery. The Church endeavoured to prevent what the
civil magistrate had been unable to repress. Councils were
held, in which, before the bodies and relics of saints, rob-
bers and violators of the peace were publicly condemned.
Wretched must have been the state of society which
seemed to call for that dreadful anathema' which issued

' Robertson's Charles the Fifth, note 29. F. F.

■ Anathema in prsedones. Auctoritate omnipotentis Dei Patris et Filii
et Spiritus sancti, interveniente, et adjuvante beata Maria semper Virgine,
auctoritate quoque ac potestate Apostolis tiadit^ nobisque relicta, excom.
municamas anathematizamus, maledicimus, damnamus et a liminibus
sancts matris Ecclesis separamus vos Remensium prsedonum, auctores
fiictores, cooperatores, fautores et a propriis dominis, rerum suarum sub
nomine emptionis abalienatores. Obtenebrescant oculi vestri, qui con-
cupiverunt; arescant manus qu8B rapuerunt; debilitentur omnia membra,
qu8B adjuverunt. Semper laboretis, nee requiem inveniatis, fructuque vestri
laboris privemini. Formidetis, et paveatis, d fade persequentis et non
perseqnentis hostis, ut tabescendo deficiatis. Sit portio ? estra cum Juda
tnditore Domini, in terra mortis et tenebrarum; donee corda vestra ad
Mtisfactionem plenam convertantnr. Hie autem sit modus plenae satis-

from ft French Ooimcil in 988. It nrart be partienlarljr
obsenredy thai the Feudal System not only oceafiaoned snch
ft number of independent local courts, but that it tras also
essentially opposed to any alteration of jurisdiction. For
since the judi<»al authority of the lords not oalj increased
iheir influence, but was also a great source of reTenue, any
interference on the part of the crown was regarded as an
invasion of their interests as well as of their rights* The
statutes of St. Lewis, though bearing the appearance and
eharacter of a general code, were only of force in his own
domains; and instances are on record of rassala having
been severely punished, and even put to death by barons,
for obeying the royal summons.*
Effect on The influence of the Feudal System upon the increase

the in- .

^t!l!ion'^of ^^ diffusion of wealth," consists of its effects upon agri-

^®^^ culture, and upon nouuiufectures and com me r c e* For it is

eiUier upon the produce of land or upon the profits of

trade, or upon both, that the wealth of a ccontry depends.

laflaeace That feudahsm was injurious to agriculture appears from the

on ag^ri-

adtvre. following Considerations. Land in thoee times was regarded
rather as a source of power and influence, than as a means
only of subsistence and enjoyment. Great tiacts of country

ikctioniB, *ut omnia hijuste ablsta pneter cilmin et potam pfropriis dominit
ex integro restituatis, coramque Remensi Ecelesia pcsniteiido IkumiUemini,
qui sanctam Remetisam Ecclesfam reveriti non estls. Ne cessent a yobif
hte malacUetiones, scelermn vestronim peraecutrices, qmmdiu p^taanebitis
in peccato peirasioiiis. Amen, Fiat, Flat.** The wbok of tbis curions
document, part of wbicb is quoted by Robertson, Gbarlea the Fifths
note 99. F. F., is here copied from Bonqaet^ Recueil dea Historiena 4e»
Gaules et de la France, torn. x. p. 517.

^ Robertson's Charles the Fifth, Z. note S.

" SeTCfal of the principles on which iibe efl^sets of the FeaU Sfstam on
the increase and difiVnion of wealth are here eslinmted, an denied lirwD
Adani Smith's Wealth of Nations.

we]?e Tested ia the hands of oomparatively few poteeflsors ;
and it has been proved by experience, that great pro-
prietors' are seldotn great improrers. As the possession
of land gave a man a certain position in societ j, and had
been at first conferred as a reward of service, being, how«-
ever, rather the medium than the ground of staticm and
privilege, the alienation of estates was contrary to the
principle of the Feudal System, and was consequently very
much discouraged, if Jiot absolntely forbidden. Fieft could
never be disposed of without the consent of the superior
lord, and that consent was not easily procured. Thus land
was ecmtinaed in the same hands, and was not regarded as
disposable property. The extensive improvements and
iacloaures, which were partly the result of the enactment '
of Henry the Seventh, permitting the alienation of land,
aie proofs of the injurious eonsequenoes of the previous
restriction. Farms, too, under the Feudal System, were
cultivated by those who had little or no interest in their
improvement; for estates occupied by villains and serfe
were not tilled at their expense and for their beai^t, but
virtually at the expense and for the benefit of the {mto-
prietors. Another cause of the neglect of agriculture was
the depreciation in the value of the produce of land,
occasioned by the check which feudalism presented to the
rise and growth of towns. For towns, as Adam Smith
has cleariy shewn, both directly by affording a market to
the produce of land, and by many other indirect means,

> *^ It wldom happens that s great proprietor is a great improver.** — SmWCt
Weabh ofNatUns, book iii. cbap. 2.

' ^ 4 Henry VII. c. 24. The practice, indeed, of breaking entails by means
of a fine and recovery was introduced in the reign of Edward the Fourth,
but was not practically law tiU tbd ttatttte of Henry the Seventh.** — Htme'9
Hisiory of England.

greatly tend to promote the spread and improvement of
agriculture.
Influence The Feudal System, then, prevented the improvement

upon ma- •f *, «

nofacture ^f agriculturc, hut it stiU more obstructed the rise and

and com
nierce.

growth of trade. It discouraged, and for a time effectually
prevented, the rise of manufactures and commerce, by the
low estimation in which they were held, by producing a
state of society unfavourable to their growth, and by
actually at times checking their progress. A general pre*
judice, although it may not to any great extent hinder the
continuance of any lucrative employment, has a great ten-
dency to obstruct its first advances* The profession of
arms was in the feudal ages the sole employment of
gentlemen, and all other occupations were regarded as
illiberal and degrading. Even an employment in agri-
culture, an occupation which was, however, for the most
part left to villains and to serfs, was preferred to any mer-
cantile transactions. In the language of feudal law, the
burgess and the villain are placed upon the same footing ;
and some immunities' conferred on the inhabitants of
towns were condemned, as granting too much licence to
slaves. It is strange that Montesquieu* should have attri-
buted the prejudices against commerce in a great measure
to the writings of Aristotle, as taught and expounded by
the schoolmen. A contempt for trade, as is evident from
ancient as well as from modern authors, was the great
characteristic of the Northern nations ; a contempt which
was greatly encouraged by the feudal institutions.

The state of society, produced by feudalism, was by no
means favourable to the progress of commerce. The division

* Du Cange, voc Commune.

* Spirit of Laws, book 20. c. 21.

of a country into separate districts, regolated by local ens-
toms, and, in many instances, by local laws, formed a great
obstmction to internal communication. Boads were conse-
quently in a bad state; and travelling was so dangerous as
to be generally declined, or to be undertaken with reluctance;
In France, restrictions were laid upon the transportation of
com from one province to another, and internal trade had
to contend almost with the difficulties of foreign commerce.
Where^ however, internal communication is difficult, it is
impossible for the goods of any particular place to enjoy the
whole of the home market which a country can afford.

Nothing is more injurious to commercial transactions
than a state of society in which property is insecure, and in
which the acquisition of wealth is almost certain to expose
its possessor to the exactions of the powerful. For although
the natural effort which man makes for the bettering of his
condition cannot be prevented by insecurity, yet that effort
is greatly discouraged when men are not certain of realizing
and enjojring their profits. That this was the case in the
feudal ages is shewn by the frequent exactions upon the
Jews, for some time the only class extensively engaged in
mercantile dealings. The citizens, though not precisely
slaves, were in such a state of insecurity, and so liable to the
demands of their lords, that a writer ^ of the present day
has said, that they were neither in a state of freedom nor
of slavery. Tallage, including occasional demands for pro-
visions and other contributions, was claimed by the lords
as a matter of right and usage. That these exactions were
arbitrary and uncertain appears from the language ° of

^ Guizot, Civilization of Europe.

« Communio autem novum ac pessimum nomen sic se habet, ut capite
eensi omnes solitum servitutis detritum semel in anno tolvant, et fi^ quid

Gbiberi, abbot of Nugent, who strongly condemnsy as m
invanon npon the rights of the lords, charters which fixed
the amonnt of tribute to be paid by the ditisens. Each
town was thus subject to the exactions of the lord under
whose direction it was placed. Even in later times, the pre^
cautions taken by the commercial classes shew the dangers
to which they were liable. Inland towns were fortified and
guarded in time of peace, and even the houses of citizeai
were constructed rather with a view to defence than to use
and convenience.

To check as much as possible the increase of trade, and
the consequent growth of towns, was also part of the pdicy
of the feudal lords. Each town was situated in some do^
main, and was, like the rest of the territories, subject to the
control of its lord, who viewed with jealousy the gradual
growth in his dominions of communities having a strong
tendency to independence. The inhabitants of towns, there^
fi>r8, seem to have been studiously kept in subjection, and
to have been considered and treated as little better th$M
slaves. The charter to London itself, granted by William
the Conqueror, contains little more than a declaration '^
that the citizens should not be treated as slaves. Freedom
appears to have been the great privilege conferred bji^
diarters ; fi>r, as we learn &om Du Oange, they were an-'
eiently called ^^ liberties.^ * This progress to freedom was
slow, and was often obstructed by the fears and prejudices
of the great lords. Limitatioiis wcm laid upon bujnag and

contra jura deliqueriDt, penaiope legvU emen4ent : cntene oensuum €i»icti«
ones, quae servis infligi solent, omnimodis vacent. Dti Cange in voc. Com-
mune.

<< Hume's History of England, vol. ii. p. 118.

« XiibertatM. Du Caagt in voe. Comniune.

33
■dliog ; Mid that th«M Were, in certMO cases, AitlMr {wo-

bilHted or diflcountenanced, appears from the priyileges'
gnuiied to certain towna. Although the Boman tnunici**
palittes are md to have poeaeflsed a degree of mdependenoe^
it was some time before any privileges were confeired upon
the feudal towns. The first corporation in Fiance was
rixty years after the conquest of England ; and no men-
tion is found of an/ charter haying been granted in Nor*
mandy till the beginning of the thirteenth century.
Chfurters were at first always granted by the crown, al*
though there are instances of their haying been bestowed,
though but rarely, by the feudal lords. But mercantile
transactions must exist to a certain extent, and if not el'*
ercised by native, are usually carried on by others. So
that by these yarious discouragements trade was taken out
of the hands of the citizens of the feudal countries, and was
transacted either by Jews or by enterprising foreigners.
This is shewn by the great wealth and profits of the Jews;
and, among many ether mstances, by the settlement of the
Lombard < bankers in London. The inyention of bills of
exchange,* in a great measure, protected foreigners frcmi
the exactions to which citiEens were subject ; and not being
in their own country., they were little affected either by the
contempt with which their employments were regarded, or
by the loss of privileges, with whidt those employments
were attended. In no country where the Feudal System
prevailed, and where its natural tendencies were not coun-
teracted, did commerce and manufactures exist to any great
extent. It was only on the subversion of that system, and

' Hume's History of England, vol. ii. Appen. 2.

t ** All foreign commodities were brought into England by the Lombard and
Hanseatic merchnnts,'^^ Pobertsom^s Charles V,, 6. O. note dO.

by assisting in its subversion, that commercial enterprise
commenced its career. Commerce, when at length freed
from the restraints against which it had so long strug-
gled, has so wonderfully increased, and dereloped the
resources of the countries in which it has prevailed, and has
been, and is still, so mighty an instrument in the progress
of civilization, that to have so long kept down its growth,
and, in some cases, to have stifled its existence, cannot but
be regarded as a great disadvantage of the Feudal System.
Effect on The most important effect of any political institution is,

the social '^ ^ . .

pwuiatioS? however, after all, its influence upon the social condition q£
the population. By social condition is here meant, not only
their condition as regards political privileges, but also their
physical, their moral, and intellectual state. On these im-
portant points of information, history is too often silent; and
in this, as in many other cases, the consideration of the pro-
bable results of known institutions, and of few and scattered
notices of facts, is the only means of ascertaining the con-
dition of the mass of the population. Only an outline can
therefore be given of what appears to have been the general
condition of the people in feudal times. A feudal country
contained but a comparatively small number of those who
were independent of any authority but that of the state ;
and only the immediate tenants of the Crown were in a state
of freedom similar to the position of a citizen in modern
countries. The subfeudatories were in a condition of sub**
jection to powerful persons ; and are so styled in the lan-
guage^ of the times. But whatever was the state of the
feudal tenants, it was a state of freedom compared with the
condition of the lower classes. The physical condition of
these classes seems, indeed, to have been good ; for we do

^ Homines potestatei.

not, except from particular causes, find any mention of
general distress. And this, considering the physical state
of tl)e lower orders in many civilized countries, mnst, in
itself, be regarded as a great advantage. ' Bat they were,
•in a great measure, in a state of slavery ; and slaves are
xsommonly supplied with the necessaries of life. It must
also be considered, that a state of complete subjection,
which affords a means of supplying mere animal wants,
naturally produces that apathy, and that insensibility to
the value of freedom, which are the worst consequences of
slavery. For it is often only by the pressure of actual want
that classes of men, as well as individuals, are roused to
exertion, and obtain for themselves far higher objects than
the mere subsistence which they at first sought. When it
is stated, that the condition of the lower orders under the
•Feudal System was, in a great measure, a condition of
slavery, it must not be supposed that the establishment of
slavery is here attributed to that system : for servitude ex-
isted in the Roman Empire till its subversion ; and would,
in all probability, to a certain extent have continued
among the barbarians, if feudalism had not become 'the
form of society. What is affirmed, and will be endeavoured
to be shewn, is, that feudalism tended to perpetuate, and
did greatly increase the subjection of the lower orders.
The northern nations, immediately after their invasion,
seem to have been all vassals or freemen. When the allodial
proprietors had gradually become vassals, and the feudal
had thus absorbed the political form of society, we find the
rustic population in a condition of subjection, and the in^
habitants of the towns in a state of dependence little better
than slavery. It is true that the rustic population were partly
composed of the inhabitants of the invaded countries ; bu^

it ii abo true, that these comprehended at well some of the
conquering nations. 'Freeman and gentleman were %y-
nonymons terms ; and in the barbarian codes, ^ it appears
that artisans were denominated as slaves ; and that without
penmsaion from their masters they conld not follow their
trades. The strong tendency of the Feudal System to pro*
mote slavery has been mentioned by some writers ^ of the
present day; but it may be as well briefly to state how it
bad that tendency. In the division of land, part was re*
served by each lord for his own use and maintenance, and
was called his '* domain.^^"* These domains were cultivated
by husbandmen, who were eventually reduced to a state
little better than that of slavery. The villains, or serfs, were
completely in the power of their lord, and, like other slaves,
were r^farded as parts of the disposable property of the
estate. As from the insecurity of society, and the oppression
of the powerful, the allodial proprietor had become the
feudal vassal, so also, from like causes, the freeman became
the slave. fVeemen gave themselves up to servitude ; pa*
rents delivered up their children to the same subjection $
and so common were these surrenders of liberty, that they
were indicated by a particular term.'* Vassals who could not
pay the fine^ for neglect of attendance on military ex*
peditions, were condemned to temporary, and even to per-
petual servitude. Those who could not discharge the judicial
fines were also adjudged to the same state. So alarming,
indeed, did the progress of slavery become, that its pre*

* Httroe*8 History of England, vol. ii. p. 118.

^ Lex Burgundionum, tit. 21, 2. Servus ferrariusy senrus srgeiitarius, &c
1 On the tendency of the Feudal System to enslave the rustic population.
Guizot's Civilization of PVance, cap. 38.
^ Spelman on Paiiiaments.
° .Obnoxiatio. Du Cange, in voc. ** Herebannttm. Da Cange, in voc.

37 ,

T^ntioB was made the subject of special laws.^ The in-
habitants of the towns were in a state which can be neither
eailed slayerj nor freedom. Apathy,** timidity, and ha*
miliation, arising from subjection and exposure to the
arbitrary power of many, seem, in the mass of the popula-
tion, to have taken the place of that boldness and that in-
dependence of spirit which are the great characteristics of
the German races. The wretched state of the lower orders
under the Feudal System, though it has had few, if any,
historians, has not left itself altogether unattested. Even
in those times, the masses of the population, from time to
time, amid disorder and rebellion, entered protests — ^in-
effectual indeed, but still protests — against the arbitrary
oppression of those to whom they were subject. The
peasants, in the rising of the Jacquerie,'' professed to seek
no acquitttion of privileges ; nor did they even make any
definite complaint. They were animated only by a spirit
of reckless Fengeance ; and to them it seemed that their
grievances were too numerous to be specified in particular
charges. Determined, as they proclaimed abroad, to extir*
pate from the earth that nobility to whom their wretched
eondition appeared attributable, they shewed the reality of
their detestation by cruelties, which nothing but feelings of

P These voltmtary surrenders of liberty, the results partly of express feudal
provisions, partly of the state of society jHroduced by the Feudal System, aie
repeatedly mentioned in the barbarian codes. Many hiws were also made im.
plicitly authorizing this practice, and directing the mode of its procedure : for
instance, Legis Frisionum, cap. 11. De Lito. Others, however, are ap-
parently framed with a view to discourage the growth of slavery. Thus, by
Legis Longobardorum, tit. xxxiv. 3. the wife and children of a man who
gave himself up into servitude were not also to become slaves.

4 The debased spirit of the times is implied, among other indications, by
the practice of giving up personal liberty to avoid the payment of certain
dues. Legis Lon^. tit. 19.

r Sismondi Histoire de Fran9ais,vol. x. p. 590. Froissart, torn. iii. c. S85.

B&Tage revenge could have suggested, and which are only
to be compared to the massacres in which they were them-
selves destroyed or dispersed. The hatred with which the
Feudal System has been more or less regarded amongst the
lower orders, is a certain proof of the judgment passed upon
it by those who have felt its influence ; and is, in some
measure, an indication of its real eflects. This feeling of
hatred, like all feelings of the kind, is excited by immediate
ill effects, and is scarcely to be allayed by the consideration
of unperceived and remote advantages. This seems to
suggest a reason why France,' which has so lately freed
herself from feudal control, regards the Feudal System with
greater h&tred than does England, which has been much
longer released from its influence. A people'^s detestation
is stamped on their language ;^ in which crimes are denoted
by words used at first to indicate simple feudal relations ;
and is also implied in the evident rancour and prejudice
with which some writers have described the Feudal System.
Fendai To thcsc cffects ought, perhaps, to be added the oppressive

character of the imposts which, in the decline of feudalism,
were substituted for military service. They are not here
considered in detail, because they appear to have been
abuses ; yet are they just noticed, because they seem to
have necessarily accompanied the transition of society from
the Feudal System. It must, however, be recollected, that

■ Hallam^s Middle Ages, c. xi. part II.

> Nothing, I think, proves more strongly the detestation in which the
people of this country held the feudal oppression, than that the word vassal,
which once signified a feudal tenant, or grantee of land, is now synonymous
to slave • and that the word villain, which once meant only an innocent
inoffensive bondsman, has kept its relative distance, and denotes a person
destitute of every moral and honourable principle, and is become one of the
most opprobrious terms in the English language. Note to Blackstone's
(Commentaries, book ii 4.

tbe feadal tenants were always, to a certain extent, liable
to imposts, the arbitrary character of which seems to have
been considered a great grievance ; for one of the prin-
cipal concessions in Magna Gharta," is the commutation
of uncertain imposts for stipulated payments. Feudal in-
cidents were a great check to the improvement of property,
and had many other injurious effects.

The advantages of the Feudal System, although some of some ad-
them have been casually noticed in the course of the pre- ^J^J^
ceding observations, have not as yet received a separate
eonsideration. In estimating these advantages, we must be
especially cautious against being led away from fact, by
imagining to ourselves the results of feudalism, considered
as an ideal system. For it seems to be the general ten*
dency of mankind, while they suppose their own age to be
superior in most other respects, yet to attribute to past ages
an excellence in moral feeling and duty. And, though we
should be careful of denying to past times that perfection
which seems to us, possibly from the degeneracy of our own
ag^, inconsistent with human nature ; yet when there ap-
pears a general presumption against any view, it is more
especially necessary to examine the authority upon which
it rests. Manv somewhat romantic views are taken of the
Feudal System while in its most perfect state. Accounts
are given of lords and vassals emulating each other in mu-
tual acts of friendship, of universal happiness, benevolence,
and liberty ; of men who acted not with views of utility, but
with high and disinterested notions. Writers, however,
who regard feudalism in so favourable a light, seldom
-appeal to historical testimony. A striking instance of this

n For instance, in the second article of Magna Sharia, the amount of
reliefs is fixed, for an Earl, 100/., for a Knight, 100;.

kind of illusion is afforded in the yery ikvourable yiew taken
of the effects of the feudal relations in France, by a histo*
rical critic of ability^^ only a few years before the reyolation;
to which yiew subsequent history is itself the best comment.
Still, whateyer may haye been the other effects of the
Feudal System, and howeyer its influence as a school for
moral discipline may haye been exaggerated, it was un-
doubtedly an adyantage that it presented, to a certain ex*
tent, scope for the exertion of feelings of mutual and ho-
nourable obligation. So little tendency haye many human
institutions to improye the heart, that the Feudal System
is not perhaps to be judged by an absolute standard.
Many of its adyantages appear, howeyer, to haye been
somewhat oyerrated. It effected, indeed, at first, a bond
of union, founded upon mutual interest ; for all held their
lands by the same charter of conquest. Yet its chief use
was against the attack of a common enemy ; for internally
it gradually produced separation and discord. It must not
be regarded as an adyantage in any system, that it reme^
died eyils which it created itself. Thus it cannot be con*
sidered an adyantage in the Feudal System, that, by sub-
stituting the slight dependence of yassalage for legitimate
subjection to a soyereign, it preyented the Dukes of G-ui-
enne'^ and Counts of Toulouse from throwing off all con-
nection with the crown of France. For their power and
comparatiye independence, and the consequent dangers of
disunion, were in a great measure the effects of the Feudal

V Allusion is here made to an observation of Boswell, in 1773. ''I
mentioned tbe happiness of the French in their subordination by the reci-
procal benevolence and attachment between the great and those in lower
rank.** — Boawells Life of Johnson, vol. ii. 840. This is the remark of a
man who has studied the Feudal System, vol. 191.

» The view here opposed occurs in** Hallam*s Middle Ages," c. ii. part 2.

System itself. It fostered in itself, among a limited number
of its members, those feelings of independence and energy
which form the most important elements in the organi-
zation of modem society. Yet these feelings were by the
stmcture of the Feudal System so entertained, as not to
develope themselves in the community at large, but to be
productive of private war, and of individual resistance to
authority. The influence of feudalism in raising the cha*
racter of woman, so important a feature in European civi-
lisation, has been by a writer^ of the present day somewhat
exaggerated. For this writer attributes this important
change almost entirely to feudalism, and rgects, as a mere
chimera, any attempt to trace it to German manners and
feelings. He alEBrms, that the accounts of the state of
women in Germany given by Gsesar and by Tacitus may
be paralleled by any description of barbarian society. But
whoever reads of the privileges of women in Germany, of
the respect, and almost adoration,' with which they are said
to have been regarded, and of their having been occasion-
ally invested with the sovereignty,* must perceive something
very different from most of the accounts given of other unci-
vilized countries. He must admit, that though the Feudal
System continued, regulated, and by some of its effects
raised the respect for the female character, that still the
origin of that respect is to be traced to the feelings and
habits of ancient Germany. But the advantages of the
Feudal System consist rather of distant results than of
immediate effects. So many of the manners, customs, and

' Guizot, Civilization of Europe. Feudal System.
■ Tac. German 8. Inesse quinetiam sanctum aliquid et providum putant
nee aut concilia earum aspernantur aut responsa negligunt.
« Germania, 45. Hittorianiin, lib. 4. Veleda.

institntions of modern society have been directly or indi*
rectly occasioned by the Feudal System, that it would be
vain to attempt to enumerate them. Although the germs of
nobility appear in the barbarian customs, it is to feudal-
ism that we in this country owe our present aristocracy
and the House of Lords. The law of primogeniture is
another relic of feudalism, which, though injurious to the
diffusion of wealth, must be valued as preventing a disputed
succession to the crown, and as keeping up the dignity of
ancient families. From feudal sentiments have originated
that gentlemanly feeling and that politeness which are the
characteristics of modern social intercourse. A writer^ of
the present day ascribes to it the existence, in modem times,
of that personal reverence to the sovereign which we deno^
minate loyalty. And though feudalism, when prevalent,
did not so much tend to the formation of that sentiment, as
to the production of a local attachment and respect paid to
the immediate superior, the feelings which that respect
called into existence may have gradually contributed to
the formation of loyalty. These are the advantages com-
monly and justly attributed to the Feudal System, and
from this comparison of its advantages and disadvantages a
general opinion must now be passed upon its merits.
General As having proceeded eventually upon wrong principles,

view of its

effects on as a defective form of society, as having been injurious to

its own

**"»«•• the community in its effects upon national defence, upon
the administration of justice, upon the increase and diffusion
of wealth, and upon the social state of the population, the
Feudal System must be pronounced to have been disadvan-
tageous. Yet, as having given scope for the exercise of
honourable feelings — as having presented a bond of union in

^ Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. ii. part 2.

the first stiges of barbarian society, as having fostered
liberty and independence, though in a manner prejudicial
to society, and in its results, not on its own times, but on
after ages — it appears to have been advantageous. Although,
therefore, the Feudal System, like many other great human
institutions, is not without its merits, — and merits, too, of no
ordinary character, — ^it must still, when viewed as a whole,
be determined to have been defective, and disadvantageous
to its own times.

The view now taken may appear to some obvious, and
to others unfair. It may be urged, that the Feudal System,
viewed in itself, is obviously defective, and that therefore
the chief point of consideration is its effect upon the pro-
gress of society ; and it may also be stated, that it is unfair
to regard feudalism separately, without taking into account
its influence upon general civilization. Still, if no new re-
sult be obtained, it is of great importance to view the Feudal
System for ourselves ; to consider whether its advantages
and disadvantages have been misrepresented or overrated ;
and to examine the grounds on which our judgment rests.
And as an institution may be injurious to its own times,
and yet advantageous to the progress of society, it must
also be viewed without reference to that progress : for the
historical critic owes a duty to past, as well as to present
times. " He is,'' to use the words of an able writer,*' " cast
back as it were into former ages ; he lives with the men
who lived before him ;" and he violates a sacred obligation
if he omits to consider in themselves the effects, for good or
for evil, of an institution upon its oWn times. It is also
necessary to take this view of an institution, in order to
perceive in what manner it affected the progress of society —

• Bo1uigbroke*8 Study of History, letter ii.

whether direetly, b0 a good in itself) or indfrectly, as att
eyil.
p«^d«^ The most important part of the liew of the Feudal Sys-
ht^nk^ tern must now be considered ; the inflaence it may have
reneni ozerted upon the progress and developement of society. For
<i<«* this mode of regarding the Feudal System is of the utmost
interest to ourselves, and is the view now commonly taken
by writers on the subject ; yet is it at the same time the
most difficult : for we ourselves are engaged on the same
field of action ; and the present state of things forms pari
of that progression of society which it is necessary to esti*
nuBciiiciM. mate. The past we see but imperfectly, of the present we
are prejudiced judges; and perhaps with the most perfect
knowledge of the past and of the present, we should find
much cause for perplexity, unless we could see the whole
OautioM. social scheme laid before us* For we must not fall into the
error of some writers, who seem^ almost insensible to them*
selves, to have regarded the present state of society as the
point in which all the tendencies of past events con-*
Terge, And although undoubtedly every thing is even*
tually for the best ; yet we must not, in considering the
progress of society, always expect to perceive in what par«
ticular manner each event or institution tended to the
general good. For those who set out with the notion, may
assent to any plausible views of the manner in which each
event and institution promoted the amelioration of society,
without examining whether they rest upon sufficient grounds.
It is one thing to deny the general progress of society to
eventual good, another to object to any special statement
of the manner in which that progress is affirmed to have
been made. And we shall also leave out of our view im*
portant considerations, and shall not discharge the duty of

historical critics, who are required to judge men as well
as erentSy if we suppose, as some appear practically to sup-
pose, that over the progress of society men themselves have
little control. For a nation, as well as an individual, has
a life, and a certain course of action ; and for these, one as
well as the other, is responsible. That i^cieties, like indi«
viduals, may obstruct or retard, or even prevent advantages,
and may bring upon themselves great evils, is a lesson taught
us by sacred history ; in which are seen not events only,
but also their causes and connection. Before viewing the
position of the Feudal System in the great scheme of society,
some proposed mode of estimating that position must be
first noticed. It has been said, that we may be assisted in
settling this question, by comparing the history of society
in feudal countries, after the dissolution of ancient civiliza-
tion, with the like history in those parts of Europe which
feudalism never reached ; France or England, for instance,
with Denmark or Sweden. Now the merits of an institu^
tion cannot be fairly estimated by comparing the state of
two countries, one of which has and the other has not that
institution, unless those countries be similar in general cha-
racter, and unless the points in which they differ be taken
into account. Now Denmark and Sweden are very different
from France and England ; the former had not, the latter
had, what may be called the Roman elements of civiliza-
tion, and became acquainted with Roman laws and institu-
tions. The Barbarians who invaded England and France
entered different countries and different climates, and came
into communication with different races. Those more
northern hordes, who took possession of Denmark and
Sweden, settled in countries with manners and habits in a
great measure similar to their own.

46
Howferaa It ifl commonlv said, that the inflaenee of an institution

uutxtotioii

wwS^ta ^P^^ ^^^ progress of society cannot be properly estimated,
its^^ ^ without taking into account the social state at the period
of its existence ; and that an institution is good which is
adapted to its own times. This is> indeed, to a certain
extent true, though the statement must be qualified by
some limitations. For admitting that institutions depend
upon circumstances, it is still the duty of historical critics
to point out their faults, and to compare them with more
excellent institutions. Thus the great practical philosopher
of antiquity, though he describes various forms of govern-
ment and observes how each is adapted to the circum-
stances of society, yet at the same time notices their faults,
and compares them with what he deemed the perfect form
of polity. When institutions are said to be adapted to the
condition of society in which they exist, it must still be re-
membered, that as the state of society may cause the es-
tablishment of certain institutions, so also may those insti-
tutions influence the state of society. ''"We are, in a
great measure, what our institution makes us ;^^ and it is a
paradox in politics that men are only fit for good institu-
tions, by having good institutions conferred upon them.
What is here meant, is not that good institutions ought to
be hastily introduced; though even then, as the experiment
has been rarely tried by competent authority, we know not
what good efilects might not be produced, by acting on
implicit faith in the capability of human improvement, and
by allowing true principles their free course. What is
here intended to be inferred is, that it is not sufficient that
an institution be merely suited to its own times. So that
for a political system, even in a relative sense, to be good,

* Southey*! GoUoquief.

it mast be shewn that it has in itself a principle of prcH
gression and amelioration; and that by at once giving way
to and promoting improvement, it either advances, or cer-
tainly does not oppose, the civilization of society. And in-
dependently of a reference to particular times, there are
certain principles of a permanent and unvarying nature by
which every institution must be estimated. There is a
certain general character, and there are certain effects
which must be required in every system, whatever be the
circumstances of the times at which it prevailed. Some of
the general and essential principles of the Feudal System
have been particularly dwelt upon, and its character of im-
mobility, so to speak, and its apparent way of any tendency
to improvement, have been especially noticed ; because the
nature of these principles, and of its general character,
forms the safest standard by which to estimate any political
institution. For we may more easily be mistaken in
viewing the actual position and influence of an institution in
society, and many circumstances may have hindered its
full and natural development. This standard is mentioned
by Burke,^ and cannot be better expressed than in his own
words. " When any political institution is praised, in spite
of great and prominent faults of every kind, and in all its
parts, it must be supposed to have something excellent in
its fundamental principles. It must be shewn that it is
right, though imperfect ; that it is not only by possibility
susceptible of improvement, but that it contains in it a
principle tending to its melioration.'*^

The effects of the Feudal System on the advances ofAUegedad-

• . vantage* of

dvilization have been somewhat misrepresented and ex- feo*^^'
aggerated. Only the most prominent of these will be

« Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.

oonsidered : its alleged advantages as a check to anardby^

as a Umitaticm to the power of the crown, and as having

been productive of sentiments and habits nnknown in

As a check anci^ot tiuies. It has been said, that the state of anarchy

to anarchy. ''

previous to the eleventh centnry is not to be attributed to
feudalism; and that it was the cause, rather than the
effect, of the general establishment of feudal tenures. And
it has therefore been stated, that the Feudal System must
be estimated by a comparison between the state of society
in the ninth, and in the eleventh and subsequent centuries.
Now feudalism, although it was more consolidated into a
system about the eleventh century, had, in a less united
form, long previously existed, and seenus to have been one
of the chief causes of the anarchy and disorder which pre*-
vailed. Its consolidation was undoubtedly far preferable
to the form in which it previously existed, as it combined
the separate parts, as far as they were capable of com*
bination, and tended to suppress, to a certain extent, disorder
and anarchy. Yet it would be a mistake, to suppose that
the disorders which the Feudal System partly repressed^
were not in a great measure produced by itself. It must
also be remembered, that it still tended to encourage civil
disunion and private war. And though the good effects of
the Feudal System must be taken into account, it ought t0
be observed, that a bad political system, which cannot
long be tolerated, is sometimes more conducive to the
permanent interest of society, than an institution whicb^
by its advantages, tends to perpetuate its many disadr
vantages.
^Sitothe ^'^ utility of the Feudal System as a check to the
^(^^. power of the crown, has also been much exaggerated*
Without it, some have stated that in Europe, as in Asi^, all

right and privilege would haTe been swept away by the
desolating hand of power. Now it is unfair to compare
the inhabitants of Asia with the nations of Western
Europe, for all allow that "their characters are so very
different, that there appears little reason to dread in
Europe any thing like Eastern despotism. Some great
central power was necessary to consolidate the divided
energies of the state ; and the Feudal System, by resisting
and preventing the efficiency of that power, seems to have
obstructed the progress of civilization. The formation of
mich a power appears to have been the probation through
which the nations of Europe must have passed. It is dif-
ficult to judge what would have been the general result, if
certain'events had not happened ; yet it seems that it is to
the great power of the monarchs of the fifteenth and six*
teenth centuries that we must attribute that national
union which at present exists. That the state of society
required great consolidation, appears to have been indicated
often previously to that period, by the national prosperity
consequent upon the developement of the resources of a
people by the rule of a powerftil prince. But it may be
asked, what would have been the effect upon society, if,
when the people were poor and disunited, the Feudal
System had not presented a barrier against the power of
the crown ! The simple answer to this is, that the poverty
and disunion of the mass of the population arose in a great
measure from the Feudal System itself. Some time after
the fell of the Roman Empire, we find mention of large
bodies of allodial proprietors imbued with all the spirit of
Northern freedom, and corresponding in s»ome measure to
our present middle classes. That these freeholders were
eventually reduced to feudal subordination, and that the

great body of the population gradually sank into slavery,
or into a state little better than slavery, has been already
pointed out. So that the Feudal System, while it prevented
the efficiency of the crown, did not tend to animate with
feelings of freedom the community at large. It must be
particularly remarked, that at the first establishment of the
Feudal System, as far as its beginning can be traced, the
people were possessed with that spirit of liberty which is
the peculiar characteristic of the Northern race. It must
also be observed, that when feudalism began to decay, it
left the people in such a helpless condition, that absolute
monarchy was almost the immediate consequence. In some
countries these monarchies have continued, in others they
have become limited. But it must be especially noticed,
that the privileges of the subject have been asserted and
recovered, not by the moral influence of a free spirit and of
public opinion, but by events as reprehensible in their
character, as often disastrous in their effects. It is only to
the great and violent revolutions which have agitated the
frame of society, that some countries in Europe owe the
liberty which they possess; and where such revolutions
have not existed, we find nothing but absolute rule and
unlimited power on the part of the crown. These revolu-
tions are but a small test of the real spirit of freedom in a
people, as they are often more violent in proportion to the
rigours of previous control. It is a sad spectacle to see
Europe returning to her former state of liberty amid
struggles, such as often involve in ruin, one as well as the
other of the two contending parties. And much as we may
appreciate its other advantages, we cannot but condemn an
institution from which, as far as we see, the necessity of
such a transition arose.

As kayinfif been the cause, to a certain extent, of theAsproduo-

sentiment of honour, and as having fostered those feelings ^SitoTSSi
and habits which are the great characteristics of modern
society, the Feudal System cannot but be valued. Yet,
though feudalism may have maintained these notions, it
must be remembered that their origin is in a great measure
to be traced to the spirit and disposition of the German
nations. Much too must be attributed to the beneficial
influence of Christianity, which cultivated and recalled
to their proper and natural objects, the rude though noble
feelings of barbarian character. Still it would be captious
to deny to the Feudal System the great merit of having
handed down to modern times, sentiments and manners
which are a great means of refining the understanding
and of pnrifying the heart, and which are in many
respects the outward show of that which Christianity
is the inward reality.
. Though an estimate of the merits of an institution, de- Beneficial

conse-

■rived from the nature of its concomitant circumstances, quences of

the decay

ought generally to be regarded with distrust; yet when?^^®^^^"
A connection may be pointed out between them, it is cer-
-tainly legitimate. It is remarkable, that while feudalism
prevailed, a toi:por hung over literature, and the spirit of
.enterprise and discovery were dormant. The decay of the
.Feudal System was followed by such a burst of combined
energy and invention, as has rarely, if ever, been paralleled
in the history of the world. Let us look for a moment at
.the ages of enterprise arid discovery, and examine whether
their energy may not be traced to some cause. Feudalism
^had previously exercised a long control, dividing a country
into separate, and almost independent parts, and preventing
that combination of feelings and interests which is the great

ism.

eoDfltitueBt of natioDality. In the fifteenth, and subseqiient
centuries, powerful monarchs bad begun to unite kingdoma
together, and to call into existence national, as distinguished
from local, feelings and interests. Hence arose many wants
which had never been felt before. But it seems to be a
general principle in nature, that the existence of a want
inevitably produces its supply. So practical, if the expres-
sion may be used, are the constitution of the world and
the inventive powers of man, that their resources may re-
main, and have remained, for ages unknown and unem«
ployed, and are only called into existence the moment a
demand for them is made. To this, rather than to mere
accident, or to some inexplicable cause, may be attributed
the great discoveries of the fifteenth and of the following
centuries. The spirit of commercial enterprise had been
gradually liberated from a long service to feudal control,
and required new fields for exertion. She found them, because
she sought them, beyond the southern coasts of the old,
and on the shores of a new world. The principle of central*
ization, so long opposed by the influence and by the very
existence of the Feudal System, was, to a great extent^
established by powerful monarchs. Local associations were
broken up; each country began to entertain. the feelings, not
of a number of dependencies, but of one united nation.
Communication and intercourse were therefore necessary.
This want was, in a great measure, supplied by the in-
vention of printing, the name of which is its best eulogy*
It is a remarkable fact, that nearly all the great discoveries
of the period have a direct tendency to promote the inter-
course and multiply the means of communication between
mankind. Thus, to mention only one other instance, the
invention of engraving in copper, multiplied and difiused

tbose iii«steriM6oeB of art which are accessible but to few.
It is quite tme, that these discoveries were afterwards, in
their torn, to an almost incalculable extent, the causes of
modem ciyilization ; but it is also true, that they were
themselves the effects of the demand for internal commu-
nication, created by the rise of an efficient central power,
and of a combined national feeling.

We have now considered the influence of the Feudal ^^^'f^,

▼lew oi tn0

System on the progress of society, and the various ways in ^JpelSiS'
which that influence is said to have been exerted. And in the pro.

gresa of

that conflict, which is always going on in society, between •oaety,
good and evil^ between improvement and degeneracy, the
Feudal System seems to have sided rather with the latter
than with the former ; and, while productive of much pre-
sent evil, appears to have long retarded the progress of
civilization. Such a conflict presented to some philoso-
phers of antiquity a problem, which they could only solve
by supposing the existence of two several principles, one of
good and the other of evil, always struggling for the mastery,
and alternately victorious. Every thing, however, under
die regulation of a higher power, is tending to eventual
good. Thus, in the Feudal System, good has been educed
from ill ; and in that outline of the scheme of society
which history presents, feudalism appears to have occupied
a certain place, and to have had a certain function. It de-
parted, after it had produced beneficial effects, which we
still feel in the present state of society. Yet how the
eventual good it occasioned compensated for all the evil
it produced, is as yet unknown ; and perhaps will continue
so till the whole scheme of society is ftiUy developed.
Geologists state, that the earth^s surface has been subject
to many convulsions, and, if the term may be used, to

many natural evils. Yet they point oat how the earth-
quake and volcano have produced their good effeete-^how
the barren waste of waters has subsided, and left behind it
the rich soil of the fertile valley. So political convulsions
and institutions, prejudicial to their own times, imd appa-
rently productive of more evil than good, have contributed
to form the present state of society. Still it is the duty of
historical critics to distinguish, by a broad line of demar-
cation, the evil from the good. Without such a dis-
tinction no historical estimate whatever can be formed of
past times.

The ultimate conclusion then is, that the advantages of
the Feudal System, when considered in itself, do not com-
pensate for its disadvantages. And in that vast march of
events, commencing, as is conmionly said, at the dissolution
of the Roman Empire, and advancing to a destination as
yet unknown, it cannot be discerned that the essential
tendency of feudalism was to promote the progress of
civilization. The Feudal System had indeed its merits,
but it often obstructed and retarded the progress of society;
and it was not till after its decay that any great advaaees
in social improvements took place. Yet good has. come
out of evil ; and by a combination of circumstances, not
to be expected in the ordinary course of events, many of
the results of feudalism have been beneficial to after-times.
A general view has now been taken of the Feudal
System. Yet questions of the greatest importance force
themselves upon us, and demand our notice, as they bear
materially upon the present subject. What is the charac-
ter of the present age, as distinguished from that of past
times! Whither does the present state of society seem to
tend! Have we not been estimating feudal times by the

^- eMe of II single perbd, by tke giafidard of our x^wn age !

ov These are questions which can be noticed only, but oadjsot

lit be answered. It is at once admitted that we have judged

m the Fendal System by the standard of otir own times, and

la* by its tendency to pYoduce, or not to ^rodm^e, the '^r^seiit

m1 -state of society. Yeft we have nsed'onr own isocial state

of as a standard, from no prejudicein its fayonr, but because

it appears to possess a real ^superiority. Let us contoist,
for afmoment^feudal times with our own. Let us view a
people who can scarcely ;be said to -have^ a national 4ife,
with 'Some free, yet many slaves, divided agaim^then^
selves, and incapable, but at times, of cambiniog their
power and resources in the pursuit of common objects.

•

Where, however, there is little power and opportunity,
there is small ree^nsibility, and little fear of abuse. Let
us regard, on the other hand, a people whose national life is
free, and has full scope for exertion, all of whom are in a
condition of personal liberty ; a people in a state of union,
and acting in their political existence with the combined
power and resources of the whole commtinity. Here is much
of power; it may almost be said, much of license ; ' but as
the power and opportunity are great, so also is there great
danger of their perversion. Which of these conditions is
preferable-^a state of comparative security, but of weak-
ness and restraint, or a state of national strength and liberty,
with some faaeard of abuse ! This is a problem, about which
many good and great men have doubted, and the solution -of
which seems to rest with the present progress of society. The
conduct of the present; and that of succeeding generations,
will shew whether a community can be safely trusted with
liberty and extensive political power, or whether these are
privileges which man cannot but pervert. " Our own age

is, indeed, bat as a day in the great cycle of sodetj ; bat a
day that has been affected by those which went before, and
that mnst affect thoie which are to foUow.^ ' When we reflect
upon past times, '^ we will not deplore^ — ^to nse the words
of a great historical critic — ^^ we will not deplore that all
have lost many an nnreplaced and irreplaceable treasure.
We will not ask whether the richest crop of good which
after-ages may hare reaped can compensate for the suf-
ferings of down-trodden generations !^ Yet are we placed
in a state of awful responsibility ; for it seems that it is to
the evils and sufferings of the past that we owe our pri-
yileges and opportunities. The present position of society
is not so much one of actual advantage, — ^for on some moral
and social points we appear to be inferior to past ages, — as
of power, opportunity, and scope for exertion. Political
privileges onghtnot, indeed, to be lightly regarded: for the
efforts of mankind to gain them attest their value ; and,
perhaps, they are the most that a government can bestow.
Yet are they, after all, only means to an end. These re-
marks are applicable to the condition of society in parts of
Western Europe ; they are peculiarly applicable to us — ^the
great English nation.

Our state is one of unusual responsibility, and of singular
historical interest. We have cast away many of the re-
straints which bound us; whether for good or for evil,
remains yet to be proved. To us much has been given ; and
of us, assuredly, will much be required. We may abuse our
great national strength; we may imprint, perchance, a lasting
blot on the character of that liberty which we enjoy ; so
that, from our example, it may be said in after-ages, that a
nation cannot be safely entrusted with large political pri-

' Similar ezprestioiif in Bolingbroke. Patriot King, page 82.

Tile]
OUT

Tileges. Or we maj use these powers as means to improre
our moral and social condition, and, bj onr influence, spread
over the globe the e£feots of our own civilization, ** as far as
waters roll, or as winds can waft them/^

VINCKNT, PRINTIR, OXPOllD.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The advantages and disadvantages of the feudal system, a prize essay"

See other formats