Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.

IT is time to say something of the political and social condition of the people which has now settled itself permanently in Britain, though it must be premised that some of the details belong to a later time.

It may be considered certain that the English tribes, while dwelling in their first home, knew nothing of kings. There was a noble and a nonnoble class among them, individuals of the former rising doubtless from time to time, by the force of great abilities and on occasion of great national emergency, to a commanding position. But there was no permanent monarchy. But this was changed by the migration to their new dwelling-place. Perhaps it may be said that the emergencies that called for the institution of kingship became permanent. Anyhow, we find the chieftains who led their successive bodies of invaders becoming kings of this or that region conquered by them, and the monarchy is hereditary, though not by any strict principle of succession such as now prevails. A minor could be

passed over in favour of an older kinsman, whose age more fitted him for the post; a weak prince might be set aside. But, as time went on, convenience dictated a more strict observance of the hereditary principle, election being found in practice to give rise to troubles and disputes. But we never find an assertion of what may be described as the jus divinum of the pedigree. On the other hand, it should be noticed that all the English kings, whether tribal or national, belonged to a limited caste. They all claimed to be descended from Woden.

The kingdom was what we call a constitutional monarchy, exactly the "hereditary kingship with well-defined prerogatives" of Thucydides. The king was the chief magistrate in peace, the chief leader in war. His actual power differed much with the individual who exercised it, but it was military rather than civil, nearly absolute in the field, sharply limited in civil matters to the administration of justice. But the theory of his power continued to develop. In the earliest times he was so far on a level with his subjects, that his life could be assessed like theirs, only at a higher price. The "wer-gild," or bloodmoney of a king, was put at 7,200 shillings, that of a ceorl at two hundred. The special sanctity of later days had not been invented. But various causes, native and foreign, were at work developing it. Before the Conquest, it had a rudimentary existence.

I

The eorl or earl was the chief man of the village,

1 This word must be carefully distinguished from the "earl" of later times, a title taking its origin, we may suppose, from the Danish "jarl,” and superse ling the older designation of "alderman," or, more properly, "earldorman."

[graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

chief, not as the maire of a French village, but in virtue of an hereditary nobility. And he was superior in wealth as in birth. The earls, in fact, were a territorial aristocracy, who administered justice in times of peace (though we find, as time goes on, professional judges beginning to be employed), and led the host in times of war.

The churls (ceorls) formed the mass of the community. They were free; they owned land; they had the right to bear arms. They bore the same relation to the earls as did the plebeians to the patricians of Rome. Probably they may be traced to the same origin; they were late incomers into the community of the original settlers.

He was not a

Under the churl came the "laet." freeholder; he tilled the land of another. I cannot do better than describe his position in the words of Mr. Green. "In the modern sense of freedom the laet was free enough. He had house and home of his own; his life and limb were as secure as the ceorl's-save as against his lord; it is probable from what we see in later laws, that as time went on he was recognized as part of the nation, summoned to the folk-moot, allowed equal right at law, and called like the full freeman to the hosting. But he was unfree as regards lord and land, He had neither part nor lot in the common land of the village. The ground which he tilled he held of some free man of the tribe, to whom he paid rent in labour or in kind. And this man was his lord. Whatever right the unfree villager might gain in the general social life of his fellow-countrymen, he had no rights as against

THE SLAVE, THE THANE, THE ALDERMAN. 171

his lord. He could leave neither land nor lord at his will. He was bound to render due service to his lord in tillage or in fight. So long, however, as these services were done, the land was his own. His lord could not take it from him; and he was bound to give him aid and protection in exchange for his services."

Finally came the slave. Sometimes he would be of the same race as his master, one who had been driven in hard times to sell himself and his family for bread, or who had been condemned to a servile condition for crime. Sometimes he would be a captive in war. Most English prisoners would probably be sold abroad, as in the case of those whom Gregory saw in the slave-market at Rome; but some, doubtless, would be kept in their captor's households. Then there would be some descendants of the British tribes whom the English invaders had dispossessed. The slave had no rights; he was a living chattel.

Another class remains to be mentioned, that of the thanes (thegns). These were the immediate followers of the king; they may be described as a nonhereditary nobility, raised to the rank they bore for service done to the king. They constituted his bodyguard, and, commonly, his personal counsellors. The steward, the cup-bearer, the armour-bearer, would be among the thanes of carly times. Later on, we find these simple functions developed into what may be called high office of State.

The alderman (earldorman) was the chief magistrate of a shire or group of shires. His office became

« PreviousContinue »