As individuals therefore, in those times of violence and confusion, were continually exposed to injustice and oppression, and received little or no protection from government, they found it necessary to be constantly attentive to their own safety.It behooved every baron, not only to support his own personal dignity, and to maintain his own rights against the attacks of all his neighbours, but also to protect his retainers and dependents; and he was led, upon that account, to regulate the state of his barony in such a manner, as to preserve the union of all its members, to secure their fidelity and service, and to keep them always in a posture of defence.With this view, when his relations, who had hitherto lived about his house, were gradually permitted to have families of their own, he did not bestow upon them separate estates, which would have rendered them independent; but he assigned them such portions of land as were thought sufficient for their maintenance, to be held upon condition, that whenever they were called upon, they should be ready to serve him in war, and that, in all their controversies, they should submit to his jurisdiction.These grants were made for no limited time, but might be resumed at pleasure; so that though the master was not likely without some extraordinary offence, to deprive his kinsmen of their possessions, yet his power in this respect being indisputable, it could hardly fail to keep them in awe, and to produce an implicit obedience to his commands.
The military tenants, supported in this manner, were denominated vassals; and the land held by any person upon such terms has been called, a fief; though many writers, in order to distinguish it from what afterwards went under the same name, have termed it a benefice.
When the estate of a baron became extensive, the slaves, by whom it was cultivated, were likewise sent to a distance from the house of their master, and were placed in separate families, each of which obtained the management of a particular farm; but that they might, in those disorderly times, be more easily protected by the owner, and might be in a condition to defend and assist one another, a number of them were usually collected together, and composed a little village.Hence they received the appellation of villani, or villains.
The whole of a kingdom was thus divided into a number of baronies, of greater or smaller extent, and regulated nearly in the same manner.The king was at the head of a barony similar in every respect to those of his subjects, though commonly larger, and therefore capable of maintaining a greater number of vassals and dependents.But the land which belonged to the barons, was held in the same independent manner with that which belonged to the king.As each of those warlike chiefs had purchased his demesnes by his own activity and valour, he claimed the absolute enjoyment and disposal of them together with the privilege of transmitting them to his posterity; and as he had not been indebted to the crown for his original possession, neither was he obliged to secure the continuance of it, by serving the king in war, or by submitting to his jurisdiction.Their property, therefore, was such as has been called allodial, in contradiction to that feudal tenure enjoyed by their respective military tenants.(5*)These peculiarities, in the state of the kingdoms which were formed upon the ruins of the Roman empire, had a visible effect upon their constitution of government.According to the authority possessed by the barons, each over his own barony, and their independence with respect to each other, and with respect to the king, was their joint power and influence over that great community of which they were members.The supreme powers of government in every kingdom were, therefore, exercised by an assembly composed of all those proprietors, and commonly summoned by the king on every great emergency.
Two meetings of this great council appear to have been regularly held in a year, for the ordinary dispatch of business;the first, after the seed-time, to determine their military operations during the summer; the second, before the harvest, in order to divide the booty.In those meetings it was customary also to rectify abuses by introducing new regulations, and to decide those law-suits which had arisen between independent proprietors of land.Such was the business of the early parliaments in France, of the Cortes in Spain, of the Wittenagemote in England; and in each of the feudal kingdom, we discover evident marks of a national council, constituted in the same manner, and invested with similar privileges.(6*)These observations may serve to show the general aspect and complexion of that political constitution which results from the first union of rude tribes, or small independent societies.The government resulting from that union is apt to be of a mixed nature, in which there is a nobility distinguished from the people, and a king exalted above the nobles.But though, according to that system, the peculiar situation of different nations may have produced some variety in the powers belonging to these different orders, yet, unless in very poor states, the influence acquired by the nobles has commonly been such as to occasion a remarkable prevalence of aristocracy.
Section II
The natural progress of government in a rude kingdom The continued union of rude tribes, or small societies, has a tendency to produce a great alteration in the political system of a people.The same circumstances, by which, in a single tribe, a chief is gradually advanced over the different heads of families, contribute, in a kingdom, to exalt the sovereign above the chiefs, and to extend his authority throughout the whole of his dominions.
