140 Birkbeck's JNotes on America. June,
neatness and order with the slovenly habits of their neighbours, we
see the good arising from mere association, which advances these poor
people a century, probably much more, on the social scale, beyond
the solitary beings who build their huts in the wilderness. For my
reflections on the principles which may be supposed to actuate the
rulers of this highly prosperous community, having no personal know-
ledge of the parties who govern, nor intimacy with any of the go-
verned, I have no data, except the simple and, possibly, superficial
observations of a traveller. Should I in this character have under-
rated or mistaken them, I shall, when their neighbour, gladly repair
my error.
• In the institution of these societies, the Shakers and the Harmo-
nites, religion, or, if you will, fanaticism, seems to be an agent so
powerful, and in fact is so powerful in its operation on the conduct of
their members, that we are apt to attribute all the wonders that arise
within the influence of this principle to its agency alone : for what
may not be effected, by a sentiment which can bear down and abro-
gate entirely, in the instance of the Shakers, and nearly so in that of
the Harmonites, the first great and fundamental law of human, or
rather of all, nature ? I allude to the tenet which is avowed in the
former, and more obscurely inculcated in the latter, that the gospel
of Christ is offered to them under the injunction of abstinence from
sexual intercourse.
‘I have had repeated opportunities of personal observation, on the
effects of the united efforts of the Harmonites. The result of a si-
milar union of powers among the Shakers, has been described to me
by a faithful witness; and I am quite convinced that the association of
numbers, in the application of a good capital, is sufficient to account
for all that has been done : and that the unnatural restraint, which
forms so prominent and revolting a feature of these institutions, is
prospective, rather than immediate in its object.
‘It has, however, as I before remarked, the mischievous tendency
to render their example, so excellent in other respects, altogether
unavailing. Strangers visit their establishments, and retire from them
full of admiration :-but, a slavish acquiescence under a disgusting
superstition, is so remarkable an ingredient in their character, that it
checks all desire of imitation.’ p. 135–140.
ARt. V., View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages.
By HENRY HALLAM, Esq. 2 vol. 4to. fjo. 1818.
THE object of this work is to trace the progress of Europe
from the middle of the fifth to the end of the fifteenth
century; from the establishment of Clovis in Gaul, to the in-
vasion of Italy by Charles VIII. ; from the final settlement of
the Barbarians in the Western empire, to the consolidation of
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's JMiddle Ages. 141
Christendom into a political system of unequal, but independ-
ent states, which has subsisted with little variation to our own
times. There are few periods of history more deserving inves-
tigation, or more pregnant with useful information to the pre-
sent age. To the revolutions of the Middle Ages the nations of
Europe owe their existing laws and institutions, their peculiar
manners and character, their particular faults and merits. We
still suffer from the prejudices and errors, we still profit by the
spirit and wisdom of our ancestors. º
It would be difficult to appreciate exactly the merits, and in-
vidious to point out the defects, of the numerous precursors of
Mr. Hallam in this branch of historical investigation. It is suf.
ficient to remark, that the plan of his work is more extensive
than that of our countryman Dr. Robertson, its arrangement
more strictly historical, its views more comprehensive, and its
information more copious and critical. Mr. Hallam appears to
have bestowed much time and reflection on his subject. He
has availed himself, without scruple, of the labours of those whe
had preceded him in the same career; but he has not servilely
adopted their opinions, nor carelessly copied their errors. On
every disputable point he has exercised his judgment freely,
and examined the conclusions of his predecessors with diligence
and impartiality. But, though he has not disdained the aid of .
modern abridgments, he has not trusted implicitly to the ex-
tracts of compilers and system makers. On the contrary, he
appears to have had recourse habitually to the original authors,
who describe the transactions and exhibit the sentiments of their
own age. This, it must be owned, is often an ungrateful la-
bour. Many pages must sometimes be perused of these wor-
thies, before a single fact or observation occurs that repays the
toil. But to an historian of the present day, who wishes to be
imbued with the real spirit and feeling of ages that are past,
the study of their writings is indispensable. To a familiar ac-
quaintance with the early chronicles and original histories of
the Barbarians, Mr. Hallam has added a diligent examina-
tion of their laws; and wherever records throw their steady
and certain light on the progress of events, he has consulted
them with care. But it is not the labour and industry employ-
ed by Mr. Hallam in the composition of his work, nor even the
valuable and interesting information it contains, that constitute
its chief or peculiar merit. It is written throughout with a spi-
rit of freedom and liberality, that do credit to the author. A
firm but temperate love of liberty, an enlightened but cautious.
philosophy, form its distinguished excellence. We never find
the author attempting to palliate injustice. or excuse oppression:
                      
                  
                  
                  142 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
and whenever he treats of popular rights, or pronounces on the
eontentions of subjects with their sovereigns, we meet with a
freedom and intrepidity of discussion that remind us of better
times. But though a decided enemy to the encroachments of
arbitrary power, Mr. Hallam is no infatuated admirer of ancient
turbulence, nor blind apologist of popular excesses. If, indeed,
there is any quality of his work that merits our unqualified ap-
probation, it is the spirit of fairness and impartiality that per-
wades the whole. We have sometimes found him careless, and
have sometimes thought him in the wrong; but we have not
met with an uncandid misrepresentation, an ungenerous senti-
ment, or a narrow-minded prejudice in his book.
To give a full analysis of Mr. Hallam's labours, in the short
compass of a review, would be a task impossible to execute.
To those who wish to follow the progress of Europe from rude-
ness to refinement,-from turbulence and violence to order and
tranquillity,+from poverty and ignorance to wealth and know-
ledge, we recommend his book as one of the most valuable ad-
ditions made in our time to the stock of our historical informa-
tion. We must content ourselves with a short notice of the
principal subjects which he treats, giving extracts to show the
spirit in which he writes, and occasionally interspersing obser-
vations of our own on particular points where we think him
mistaken, or happen to differ from him in opinion.
The first chapter of Mr. Hallam’s book is employed in giving
an abridgment of the history of France, from its conquest by
Clovis to the invasion of Naples by Charles VIII. This is a
rapid but masterly sketch of the revolutions of that great king-
dom. The principal events are selected with judgment, and re-
lated with spirit. It was no part of the author’s plan to follow,
with minute and tedious exactness, the succession of princes, or
to expatiate on undecisive wars and fruitless victories. His ob-
ject was, to mark those important events which led to perma-
ment changes in the internal state and political institutions of
France. He passes slightly over the degradation and deposal
of the first dynasty; dwells with complacence on the splendid
character of Charlemagne; describes the anarchy that led to the
usurpation of the Capets; and traces with precision the succes-
sive encroachments by which the princes of that ambitious ſa-
mily gradually extended their dominions and increased their
power, till the feudal constitution, of which they were at first
only the superior lords, disappeared from sight, and left an ab-
solute and arbitrary monarchy in its place. In his review of
the Capetian race, Mr. Hallam bestows that eulogy on St. Lewis
which his solitary virtue so justly merits.
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. ' 143
The wars with England, arising from the claim of Edward
III. to the French crown, occupy a considerable part of this
abridgment, and are related with great fairness and candour.
The magnificent character of Edward and his son, the splen-
dour of their victories, and the chivalrous spirit of their court,
are themes that still warm the imagination, and excite no un-
natural exultation in every English bosom. “If we could for-
* get,” says Mr. Hallam, “what never should be forgotten, the
* wretchedness and devastation that fell upon a great kingdom,
* too dear a price for the display of any heroism, we might
* count these English wars in France among the brightest pe-
“riods in history.”—“A good lesson,” he continues, “may be
‘ drawn by conquerors, from the change of fortune that befel
* Edward III. A long warfare, and unexampled success, had
• procured for him some of the richest provinces of France.
* Within a short time, he was entirely stripped of them, less
‘through any particular misconduct, than in consequence of
* the intrinsic difficulty of preserving such acquisitions. The
* French were already knit together as one people; and even
* those, whose feudal duties sometimes led them into the field
* against their sovereign, could not endure the feeling of dis-
• memberment from the monarchy.” In the provinces ceded
to Edward, by the peace of Breligny, the inhabitants submit-
ted, with sullen reluctance, to the English yoke. “Such un-
‘willing subjects might, perhaps, have been won by a prudent
‘government; but the temper of the Prince of Wales, which
“was rather stern and arbitrary, did not conciliate their hearts
‘to his cause.” The war was soon after renewed; and, “in a
‘ few campaigns, the English were deprived of almost all their
“conquests, and even, in a great degree, of their original pos-
* sessions in Guienne.” .
Charles V. of France, having expelled the English, ‘be-
* came a sagacious statesman, an encourager of literature, a
“beneficent lawgiver. But all the fruits of his wisdom were
‘lost in the succeeding reign. In a government essentially po-
‘pular, the youth or imbecility of the sovereign creates no ma-
“terial derangement. In a monarchy, where all the springs of
‘the system depend upon one central force, these accidents,
‘which are sure, in the course of a few generations, to recur,
* can scarcely fail to dislocate the whole machine.” The States
General interfered, with success at first, to restrain the prodi-
gality of the court; but the partisans of royalty ultimately pre-
vailed. The city of Paris, which had shown a spirit of demo-
cratic freedom, offensive to its rulers, was treated as the spoil
‘of conquest; its immunities abridged; its most active leaders
                      
                  
                  
                  144 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
* put to death; a fine of uncommon severity imposed ; and the
“taxes, which had been repealed by the States General, were
“renewed by arbitrary prerogative. It is difficult,” continues
Mr. Hallam, “to name a limit beyond which taxes will not be
‘ borne without impatience, when they appear to be called for
‘ by necessity, and faithfully applied. But the sting of taxa-
‘tion is wastefulness. What high-spirited man could see,
* without indignation, the earnings of his labour, yielded un-
“grudgingly to the public defence, become the spoils of para-
‘ sites and peculators : It is this that mortifies the liberal hand
‘ of public spirit; and those statesmen, who deem the security
‘ of government to depend, not on laws and armies, but on the
‘moral sympathies and prejudices of the people, will vigilantly
“guard against even the suspicion of prodigality.” Such were
not the statesmen, unhappily for France, who then presided over
her destinies. The outrageous dissoluteness of the Court, its
enormous extravagance, and shameless contempt of public opi-
nion, aggravated the discontent, and embittered the distresses of
the people. Assassination openly perpetrated, and publicly
vindicated, destroyed all confidence between the hostile fac-
tions. Henry V. of England, profiting by these dissentions,
contrived, by war and negotiation, to be declared the successor
to the French monarchy. His premature death, fortunately for
both countries, frustrated his plans. England in her turn be-
game distracted by domestic dissentions, and patriotism and su-
perstition combined to expel her armies once more from France.
We have no hesitation in condemning, with Mr. Hallam, the
pretension of Edward III. to the Crown of France. The
claim of Philip had been recognised by the States and people
of France, and confirmed by his peaceable possession of the
throne for several years. He had been guilty of no errors of
government, or encroachments on his subjects’ rights, that
could justly absolve them from their allegiance. Whether he was
the nearest heir to the preceding monarch or not, seems to us,
in these circumstances, a matter of mighty indifference. He
had the best of all titles, the willing acquiescence of his sub-
jects, and their firm determination to support him against all
competitors. But, if the claim of Edward is to be considered
as a mere question of hereditary right, we are not sure that Mr.
Hallam has either stated the argument in his favour correctly,
or decided with justice against its validity. Edward and his an-
tagonist agreed in admitting, that females were excluded from
the French throne. What Edward contended was, that this
exclusion did not extend to their male posterity; and, of these,
that he was the nearest male relation to the last King, and
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. }{5
therefore his lawful heir. Whatever we may think of this last
distinction, essential, it must be confessed, to Edward's claim,
it was considered of importance in the middle ages. It was the
ground on which Bruce rested his pretension to the Scottish
sceptre; and at Caspe, where the same question was agitated
before commissioners from the three kingdoms of Arragon, the
principle maintained by Edward, was adopted in the disposal
of the crown, by a majority of the delegates present on that
occasion. Ferdinand of Castile was preferred to his compe-
titors, because he was the heir male nearest in blood to the pre-
ceding monarch. This trifling oversight of Mr. Hallam is the
more extraordinary, as the real ground of Edward's pretensions
to the crown of France, had been stated with precision by Ra-
pin and by Carte.
Mr. Hallam’s abridgment of the history of France, is an ex-
cellent preparation for the chapter that follows on the feudal
system, one of the most valuable and instructive parts of his
book. In his dissertation upon this subject, he traces the rise
and progress of that singular form of polity,+explains its princi-
ples, and distinguishes what was original and essential to the
system, from that which was incidental and confined to parti-
cular times and countries. Its effects on society and govern-
ment, he appreciates with sagacity and candour; and explains,
with great judgment and perspicuity, the causes that led to its
establishment, and the changes that gradually undermined its
principles, and finally subverted its institutions.
“It is the previous state of society,” he observes, “under the
grandchildren of Charlemagne, which we must always keep in mind,
if we would appreciate the effects of the feudal system upon the wel-
fare of mankind. The institutions of the eleventh century must be
compared with those of the ninth, not with the advanced civilization
of modern times. The state of anarchy, which we usually term
feudal, was the natural result of a vast and barbarous empire, feebly
administered, and the cause, rather than the effect of the general estab-
lishment of feudal tenures. These, by preserving the mutual rela-
tions of the whole, kept alive the feeling of a common country, and
common duties; and settled, after the lapse of ages, into the free con-
stitution of England, the firm monarchy of France, and the federal
union of Germany.
“The utility of any form of policy may be estimated, by its effects
upon national greatness and security, upon civil liberty and private
rights, upon the tranquillity and order of society, upon the increase
and diffusion of wealth, or upon the general tone of moral sentiment
and energy. The feudal constitution was little adapted for the de-
fence of a mighty kingdom, far less for schemes of conquest. But as
it prevailed alike in several adjacent countries, none had any thing to
vol. XXX. No. 59. 19
                      
                  
                  
                  146 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
fear from the military superiority of its neighbours. It was this in-
efficiency of the feudal militia, perhaps, that saved Europe, during
the middle ages, from the danger of universal monarchy. In times,
when princes had little notion of confederacies for mutual protection,
it is hard to say what might not have been the successes of an Otho,
a Frederick, or a Philip Augustus, if they could have wielded the
whole force of their subjects, whenever their ambition required. If
an empire equally extensive with that of Charlemagne, and supported
by military despotism, had been formed about the twelfth or thir-
teenth centuries, the seeds of commerce and liberty, just then begin-
ning to shoot, would have perished; and Europe, reduced to a barba-
rous servitude, might have fallen before the free barbarians of Tar-
tary.
Pir we look at the feudal polity as a scheme of civil freedom, it
bears a noble countenance. To the feudal law it is owing, that the
very names of right and privilege were not swept away, as in Asia,
by the desolating hand of power. The tyranny, which, on every fa-
vourable moment, was breaking through all barriers, would have riot-
ed without control, if, when the people were poor and disunited, the
nobility had not been brave and free. So far as the sphere of feudali-
ty extended, it diffused the spirit of liberty, and the notions of pri-
vate right. Every one will acknowledge this, who considers the li-
mitations of the services of vassalage, so cautiously marked in those
law books which are the records of customs; the reciprocity of obli-
gation between the lord and his tenant; the consent required in every
measure of a legislative or general nature; the security, above all,
which every vassal found in the administration of justice by his peers,
and even (we may in this sense say) in the trial by combat. The bulk
of the people, it is true, were degraded by servitude; but this had no
connexion with the feudal tenures.
‘The peace and good order of society were not promoted by this
system. Though private wars did not originate in the feudal cus-
toms, it is impossible to doubt that they were perpetuated by so con-
venient an institution, which indeed owed its universal establishment
to no other cause. And, as predominant habits of warfare are totally
irreconcilable with those of industry, not merely by the immediate
works of destruction which render its efforts unavailing, but through
that contempt of peaceful occupations which they produce, the feu-
dal system must have been intrinsically adverse to the accumulation of
wealth, and the improvement of those arts which mitigate the evils or
abridge the labours of mankind.
“But, as a school of moral discipline, the feudal institutions were
perhaps most to be valued. Society had sunk, for several centuries
after the dissolution of the Rounan empire, into a condition of utter
depravity ; where, if any vices could be selected as more eminently
characteristic than others, they were falsehood, treachery and ingra-
titude. In slowly purging off the lees of this extreme corruption, the
feudal spirit exerted its ameliorating influence. Violation of faith
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 147
stood first in the catalogue of crimes, most repugnant to the very es-
sence of a feudal tenure ; most severely and promptly avenged; most
branded by general infamy. The feudal law books breathe through-
out a spirit of honourable obligation. The feudal course of jurisdic-
tion promoted, what trial by peers is peculiarly calculated to pro-
mote, a keener feeling, as well as readier perception, of moral as well
as of legal distinctions. In the reciprocal services of lord and vassal,
there was ample scope for every magnanimous and disinterested
energy. The heart of man, when placed in circumstances that have
a tendency to excite them, will seldom be deficient in such senti-
ments. No occasions could be more favourable, than the protection of
a faithful supporter, or the defence of a beneficent sovereign, against
such powerful aggression, as left little prospect except of sharing in
his ruin.” A-
It is in France, chiefly, that Mr. Hallam contemplates the
feudal system, and therefore, in describing its decay, he is na-
turally led to the consequences that ensued, in that kingdom, on
its fall. He traces the gradual encroachments of the Crown, as
the power of the nobility was reduced; its usurpation of the le-
gislative authority, which had lain dormant for centuries; its
assumption of the right of taxation, in opposition to the remon-
strances of the States; its success in wresting from the Barons
their territorial jurisdiction, and in placing the administration
of justice in judges appointed by the king. He shows, in the
course of this inquiry, that it was to the dissolution of all but
the feudal government, at the accession of the third dynasty,
and to the independence effected, and for many ages main-
tained by the feudal nobility, that the kings of France were in-
debted for the absolute authority which they at last acquired.
When Hugh Capet usurped the throne, France was “rather a
collection of states, partially allied to each other, than a single
monarchy. The kingdom was as a great fieſ, or rather as a
bundle of fiefs, and the king little more than one of a number
of feudal nobles, differing rather in dignity than in power
from some of the rest.” The vassals of the Crown had the
right of coining money, and of waging private war; they enjoy-
ed exemption from all public tributes, except the feudal aids;
were free from legislative control; and possessed the exclusive
exercise of original jurisdiction in their dominions. “The
king,” says St. Lewis in his establishments, “cannot make pro-
clamation, that is, declare any new law, in the territory of a
baron, without his consent, nor can the baron do so in that of
a vavassor. If legislative power, therefore, be essential to so-
vereignty, we cannot, in strictness, assert the king of France
to have been sovereign beyond the limits of his own do-
                      
                  
                  
                  143 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
mains.' Trusting to this exemption from all laws, but those
to which they had given their express consent, the barons with-
held their presence from the king’s court, or attended on par-
ticular occasions only, when questions of great public import-
ance were to be discussed. In this suspension of legislative
authority, the necessity of new laws induced the kings of
France to frame ordinances by advice of their council; and to
these ordinances, when they became powerful, they gave the
effect of laws, by means of the coercive authority acquired by
their courts of justice. The supreme legislative power of the
Crown was, in this manner, the natural result of the original in-
dependence of the nobility, and of ‘their ill-judged confidence
in the stability of their feudal privileges.” In these and other
encroachments of prerogative, the king had the never-failing
support of the lawyers and the clergy, who were disgusted with
the violence of the nobles, and had ſound, in the civil and canon
law, a system of political maxims very different from those of
the feudal code. “A new theory of absolute power and un-
conditional obedience was introduced; and Frenchmen were
taught, that “all feudal privileges were encroachments on the
imprescriptible rights of the monarchy.’
The States General were first assembled by Philip the Fair,
for the purpose of obtaining money from his subjects.” “At no
period, and in no instances did they possess a co-ordinate le-
gislative authority with the Crown, or even a consenting voice,
Mably, Boulainvilliers, and Montlosien are as decisive on this
subject, as the most courtly writers of that country. It fol-
lows,’ says Mr. Hallam, “that France never possessed a free
constitution; nor had the monarchy any limitations in respect
of enacting laws, save those which, until the reign of Philip
the Fair, the feudal principles had imposed.” The sole pri-
vilege possessed by the States was, to grant money, and to regu-
late the collection of it. But, notwithstanding the narrow limits
of their constitutional authority, they made various efforts to re-
dress the grievances, and reform the government of the State.
These attempts, however, though renewed at intervals, from the
time of John to the reign of Charles VIII., were constantly de-
feated, either by the dissentions of the different orders, or by
the disturbances and popular excesses to which they gave rise.
The authority of the States, even in grants of money, was ex-
tremely limited. They were held to have no power of impo-
sing taxes without the specific consent of their constituents.
Whether it was the timidity of the deputies, or false notions
of freedom, which produced this doctrine, it was evidently
repugnant to the stability and dignity of a representative as:
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's JMiddle Ages. 149
sembly. Nor was it less ruinous in practice, than mistaken in
theory. For as the necessary subsidies, after being provision-
ally granted by the States, were often rejected by their elec-
tors, the king found a reasonable pretence for dispensing with
the concurrence of his subjects, when he levied contributions
upon them.” In the fifteenth century, provincial assemblies,
which were found to be more manageable than the States Gene-
ral, were substituted in their place for obtaining grants of
money; and at length ‘the formality of consent, whether by
general or provincial States, ceased to be reckoned indispen-
sable. Charles VII. levied money by his own authority.
Lewis XI. carried this encroachment to the highest pitch of
exaction. It was the boast of courtiers, that he first released
the kings of France from dependence; or, in other words, that
he effectually demolished those barriers, which, however im-
perfect and ill placed, had opposed some impediment to the es-
tablishment of despotism.’ -
After a long and unequal struggle to maintain their inde-
pendence, the territorial courts of the Barons were brought un-
der the authority of the royal tribunals. This change, in many
respects beneficial to the people, was completed in the four-
teenth century, by the establishment of the Parliament of Paris.
and other sovereign courts. But these tribunals, after contri-
buting to the exaltation of the royal prerogative, attempted to
set up barriers against the power they had created. It had be-
come usual to promulgate in the Parliament of Paris, the royal
edicts prepared in the Council, or to send them thither for re-
gistration. ‘This formality was deemed essential to render
them authentic and notorious, and thus indirectly gave them the
sanction and validity of law.” In the fifteenth century, the
Parliament began to claim a right of judging the expediency of
the edicts transmitted to it for registration; and this pretension,
extraordinary and anomalous as it appears, it maintained to
the period of the Revolution. Subsequent regulations ren-
dered its members independent of the Court; and, from the
spirit of resistance which they afterwards displayed, this body
of lawyers ‘became, in later times, the sole depositary of public
spirit, and attachment to justice, in France. Doubtless,’ says Mr.
Hallam, “the Parliament of Paris, with its prejudices and narrow
views; its high notions of loyal obedience, so strangely mixed up
with remonstrances and resistance ; its anomalous privilege of object-
ing to edicts, hardly approved by the nation who did not participate
in it, and overturned with facility by the king, whenever he thought
fit to exert the sinews of his prerogative, was indeed poorly substi-
tuted for that co-ordinate sovereignty, that equal concurrence of na-
                      
                  
                  
                  150 Hallam's JMiddle Ages. June,
tional representatives in legislation, which has long been the exclu-
sive pride of our government, and to which the States-General of
France, in their best days, had never aspired. No man of sane un-
derstanding would desire to revive institutions, both uncongenial to
modern opinions and to the natural order of society. Yet the name
of the Parliament of Paris must ever be respectable. It exhibited,
upon various occasions, virtues from which human esteem is as inse-
parable as the shadow from the substance; a severe adherence to
principles, an unaccommodating sincerity, individual disinterestedness
and consistency.’
The decline of the feudal system in France, Mr. Hallam
ascribes to the aggrandizement of the Crown by the annexation
of Normandy, Toulouse, and other great fiefs; to the institution
of free and chartered towns ; and to the introduction of hired
soldiers in place of the feudal militia. The emancipation of
the towns he refers to the necessities, rather than to the policy
of the Court; and doubts whether the Crown derived any sub-
stantial addition of power from this innovation, till the reign of
Lewis VIII., when the king claimed “the immediate sovereign-
ty over all chartered towns, in exclusion of their original lords.”
By the establishment of this pretension, and the prudent use
made of it by the government, a deadly blow was given to the
feudal aristocracy, which, from other causes, was going rapidly
to decay. It is worthy of remark, that as soon as the inde-
pendence of the Barons had completely yielded, ‘the Court
began to give into a new policy, which was ever after pursued;
that of maintaining the dignity and privileges of the noble
class against those attacks which wealth and liberty encourag-
ed the plebeians to make upon them.’ It was by this variable,
but uniformly selfish policy, skilfully adapted to circumstances
as they arose, that the kings of France were enabled to tram-
ple by turns on every class of their subjects, and erect an ar-
bitrary despotism on the ruins of their liberty. To humble
his nobles, the king condescended to become the protector of
his towns, and dispenser of equal justice to his people. When
his nobles were sufficiently humbled, he espoused their cause,
and crushed their plebeian adversaries with his sceptre of iron.
The lawyers, after contributing to his victory, and corrupting
public opinion by their doctrines, when they attempted to raise
their feeble voice against his power, found their own slavish
maxims and lessons of obedience turned against themselves.
Had these different orders of men possessed sagacity to discern
their real interests, and sense to unite against their common ene-
my, France, like England, might have settled into a limited
monarchy, instead of being for ages the scourge of Europe
abroad, and victim of arbitrary power at home.
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 151
Mr. Hallam finds instances of hired soldiers in the 10th and
11th centuries. In the 12th and 13th, the practice became
common; and, in the 14th, nearly universal. But these sol-
diers were disbanded at the conclusion of hostilities; a standing
army in time of peace being unknown in France, till the ordi-
nance of Charles VII. in 1444. The employment of hired sol-
diers led to another innovation, that of escuage or scutage;
which was a compensation in money paid by the feudal vassals
to their sovereign, in lieu of the military service to which they
were bound by their tenures. Madox cannot trace the existence
of scutage in England beyond the time of Henry I. But there
is a transaction recorded of William Rufus, that bears a great
resemblance to it, and appears to us to throw considerable light
upon its origin. We are informed in the Annals of Waverly,
that in 1094, rer Willielmus misit ad hanc terram (Angliam scil.)
et jussit summoneri viginti millia Anglorum qui venirent illi in
auxilium in Normanniam; sed postguam ad mare venerunt, jussi
sunt redire, et mittere regi pecuniam quam deferebant, scilicet
unusquisque viginti solidos, quod ipsi fecerunt.* That is, the
military tenants gave to the crown what they had provided to
bear the expenses of their expedition, and the king accepted
this payment in lieu of their personal attendance. They were
saved from the dangers, inconvenience and fatigues of war; and
he was furnished with money for the hire of mercenaries, whose
“soldier-like principles of indiscriminate obedience, still more
than their courage and field discipline, render them dear to
kings, who dreaded the free spirit of a feudal army.”
Before taking leave of this part of Mr. Hallam's book, we
must observe, that some doubtful positions are maintained in it,
to which we should have been desirous of calling his attention,
if we had not been afraid of fatiguing our readers by the mi-
nuteness and prolixity of the discussion. We shall therefore
content ourselves with expressing our doubts of the correctness
of his statement, “that the exclusion of females from inheritance
in fixed possessions was very common among the Teutonic ma-
tions.”f—We shall cite a few examples to the contrary. The
Burgundian law is one of the most ancient codes of the Barba-
rians, and most exempt from the interpolation of latter times.
But in that code we have the following passage. Inter Burgun-
diones id volumus custodiri, ut si quis filium non reliquerit, in loco
filii.filia in patris matrisque hereditate succedat. The same law
of inheritance was established among the Lombards. Si quis
*
* Gale, 2. 139. + Vol. I. p. 103 Note.
: Tit. 14, 1.
                      
                  
                  
                  152: Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
Langobardus sine filiis legitimis masculinis mortuus fuerit, et filiam
dereliquerit unam aut plures legitimas, ipsa, ei in omnem heredita-
tem patris vel matris suae, tanquam filii legitimi masculini, heredes
succedant.* Sons were preferred to daughters, by the northern
nations, in the inheritance of land; but we know of no absolute
exclusion of females, except in the celebrated text de terra sa-
lica; and of what this terra salica consisted, Mr. Hallam is fully
aware no two antiquarians are agreed. With respect to other
sorts of alodial land, the Salii, like the other German tribes, had
no difficulty in admitting the succession of females.f The Ri-
puarii excluded women from any portion of their grandfather's
inheritance, while any of his male progeny survived;i and the
Anglii maintained this prohibition, while there were male rela-
tions to be found in the fifth degree of consanguinity; but in
neither case was the exclusion absolute. Post quintam autem
(generationem) filia er toto, sive de patris sive matris parte, in
hereditatem succedat, et tunc demum h reditas ad fusum a lancea
transeat. § If a man dies without children, says the Ripuarian
code, and leaves neither father nor mother, let his brother and
sister succeed to his inheritance; and if he has neither brother
nor sister, let his aunts inherit his possessions.| The Saxons
and Alemanni preferred sons to daughters; but, on the failure
of sons, the whole inheritance of the father descended to the
daughters.”
Mr. Hallam controverts the opinion of Montesquieu, adopted
by Robertson and Mably, that the benefices granted by the
Merovingean kings of France, were originally precarious, and
resumable at the pleasure of the Sovereign; and he has certain-
ly shown, that the authorities cited by Montesquieu do not war-
rant him in that conclusion. It is probable, that benefices were
granted on different terms by different nations. There is rea-
son to believe, that among the Burgundians they were from the
first hereditary. It appears from the laws of that nation, that
those who held benefices from the Crown, had no share in the
distribution of the alodial lands taken from the Romans. Licet
codem tempore, says the Burgundian lawgiver, quo populus mos-
ter mancipiorum tertiam et duas terrarum partes accepit, jusmodi
a nobis fuerit emissa praeceptio, ut quicumque agrum cum manci-
piis, seu parentum nostrorum, sive largitate nostra perceperat;
* Luitprandi leges, cap. 1. f Lex Salica, tit. 62.
f Lex Ripuar. tit, 56. § Leg. Angl. et Werin. tit. 6, 1.8.
| Lex Ripuar. tit. 56, ll. 1, 2, 3.
** Lex Saxon, tit. 7, ll. 1, 5.-Lex Aleman. tit. 57, 92.
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 153
nec mancipiorum tertiam nec duas terrarum partes ea eo loco, in
quo ei hospitalitas fuerat delegata, requireret.* But, when this
regulation was made, if beneficiary lands could have been re-
Bumed at pleasure, or had returned to the Crown on the death
of the person who held them, the Leudes of Burgundy must
have been in a worse condition than the alodial proprietors,
though superior to them in rank and dignity. If this anomaly
ever existed, which we can hardly believe, it must have been of
short duration. The same code informs us, that at the time
when it was promulgated, beneficiary lands had become heredi-
tary property in Burgundy. Among the Visigoths, the Fir'eles
were secured in their benefices, and these declared to be their
hereditary property, by the decrees of the 5th and 6th Coun-
cils of Toledo.
The revolutions of Italy, which, according to the plan adopt- -
ed by Mr. Hallam, follow his account of the feudal system
in France, are too numerous and too camplicated to be treated
with interest and perspicuity in an abridgment like this. Mr.
Hallam may be forgiven for not accomplishing, in 150 pages,
what it has cost M. Sismondi ten volumes to execute. There
are, nevertheless, fine passages and interesting details in this
chapter; and throughout we find the same spirit of liberality
and impartial regard to justice, which are so conspicuous in the
other parts of his book. His account of the great struggle be-
tween Frederick Barbarossa and the Lombard cities, is given
with spirit and animation; and the concluding remarks exhibit
an admirable specimen of the true lessons to be drawn from his-
tory.
“The successful insurrection of Lombardy,” he observes, ‘is a
memorable refutation of that system of policy to which its advocates
give the appellation of vigorous, and which they perpetually hold
forth as the only means through which a disaffected people are to be
restrained. By a certain class of statesmen, and by all men of harsh
and violent disposition, measures of conciliation, adherence to the
spirit of treaties, regard to ancient privileges, or to those rules of
moral justice which are paramount to all positive right, are always
treated with derision. Terror is their only specific; and physical in-
ability to rebel, their only security for allegiance. But if the razing
of cities, the abrogation of privileges, the impoverishment and op-
pression of a nation could assure its constant submission, Frederick
Barbarossa would never have seen the militia of Lombardy arrayed
against him at Legnano. Whatever may be the pressure on a con-
quered people, there will come a moment of their recoil. Nor is it
material to allege, in answer to the present instance, that the acci-
* Lex Burgund. Tit, 54.
vol. XXX, NO. 59. 20
                      
                  
                  
                  1 54 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
dental destruction of Frederick's army by disease, enabled the cities of
Lombardy to succeed in their resistance. The fact may well be dis-
puted; since Lombardy, when united, appears to have been more than
equal to a contest with any German force that could have been brought
against her; but, even if we admit the effect of this circumstance, it
only exhibits the precariousness of a policy, which collateral events
are always liable to disturb.”
His account of the feuds and internal dissentions of the Ita-
lian republics, is written in the same excellent spirit. . Their
implacable animosities—their merciless proscriptions—the par-
tiality, violence, and ingratitude of their factions, he censures
as they deserve; but in comparison with the benefits which li-
berty conferred upon them, ‘the disorders that rufiled their
surface appear slight and momentary. The men and institu-
tions of the fourteenth century are to be measured by their
contemporaries. Who would not rather have been a citizen
of Florence, than a subject of the Visconti! In a superficial
review of history, we are sometimes apt to exaggerate the vices
of free states, and to lose sight of those inherent in tyrannical
power. The bold censoriousness of republican historians, and
the cautious servility of writers under an absolute monarchy,
conspire to mislead us as to the relative prosperity of nations.
Acts of outrage and tumultuous excesses in a free state, are
blazoned in minute detail, and descend to posterity; the deeds
of tyranny are studiously and perpetually suppressed.” So
strongly is he impressed with the evils attendant on slavery, that,
in a subsequent passage, he states it as “a doubtful problem,
whether the sum of general happiness has lost more in the last
three centuries, through arbitrary power, than it has gained
through regular police and suppression of disorder.’
Florence, the most democratic of the great Italian republics,
preserved her freedom, and maintained her station as protector
of the general liberties of Italy; while neighbouring cities, less
fortunate, or less wisely administered, sunk under the yoke of ty-
rants, or shrunk into jealous oligarchies. Her turn came at last.
Her free constitution fell a sacrifice to the cunning arts of the
Medici, whose patronage of letters and encouragement of the
arts cannot redeem their name from the infamy of having sub-
verted the most splendid republic that has existed since the days
of Athens. It was by the exercise of some virtues, and the af-
fectation of others, that the Medici obtained that fatal popula-
rity which enabled them to cheat their fellow-citizens of their
liberties. The hour of their victory was the last of the mode-
ration they had affected. No revolution at Florence was fol-
lowed by more numerous exiles, polluted by more extensive
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam’s Middle Ages. 155
confiscations, disgraced by more permanent exclusions, or stain-
ed with more noble blood, than the success of the pretended
father of his country. Their predecessors, though guilty of oc-
easional acts of violence, “had in general respected the legal
forms of their free republic ; the Medici made all their govern-
ment conducive to hereditary monarchy.’ From the moment
this family of profligate hypocrites obtained the supreme autho-
rity, the character of Florence was as much changed as that of
Rome by the dominion of the Caesars. The external politics
of the State became low and selfish. To secure their own pow-
er was the sole object of its new rulers. The republic had been
the constant enemy of the Wisconti. The Medici became the
friends and allies of the Sporzas. The degradation of indivi-
duals followed the decline of public principle in the State; and
Florence sunk into that abyss of infamy and corruption, from
which it has never since emerged.
Mr. Hallam seems to have considered the annals of the Visi-
goths as unworthy his attention; and to this prepossession we
must ascribe the mistakes and omissions, into which he has fall-
cn, in his account of Castile. He tells us, for instance, that
Roderic of Toledo, “one of the earliest Spanish historians,”
flourished in the beginning of the 13th century. But, if he
had taken the same trouble with the history of Spain, which he
has bestowed on the transactions of France, he would have
known, that there is a regular succession of Spanish chronicles,
and some of them curious and valuable, from Idatius in the 6th
century, to the annals of Compostella, and the Latin chronicle
of Alonso VIIth in the 12th. He would also have avoided a
mistake in his chapter on ecclesiastical usurpations, where he
relates the deposal of “one Wamba, a King of the Visigoths
in Spain,” as the first instance of the deposition of a sovereign
Prince, by authority of the Church. If he had consulted the
Spanish historians, he would have found, that Wamba, being
supposed on the point of death, had received the tonsure as a
preparation for a better world; and that having submitted to
this ceremony, he was rendered incapable of resuming the
sceptre by a previous law of the 6th council of Toledo, which
enacted, that no person sub religionis habitu detonsus should
wear the crown. The successor of Wamba was suspected of
having caused his illness, by administering to him certain poison-
ous drugs; and it was even said, that when Wamba submitted
to the tonsure, he was unconscious of what was done to him.
It might have been a question, therefore, whether the trans-
action was not fraudulent, and on that ground Wamba might
have reclaimed the crown, if he had been so disposed; but there
can be no doubt, that by the existing law, supposing him to
                      
                  
                  
                  156 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
have been fairly tonsured, he was no longer capable of holding
the sceptre. Wamba abdicated, or was deposed in 680. The
law. by which he was excluded, had been passed in 638, in a
council composed, as usual, of Bishops and Palatines. These
are not the only mistakes into which Mr. Hallam has been led
by his contempt of the Spanish historians. He represents Fer-
dinand I. of Leon and Castile, as “master of the whole His-
pano-Gothic monarchy.’ But, so far from this being true,
there were at that time independent Spanish Kings in Navarre,
Sobrarbe and Arragon ; and, so far from ‘a cessation of hostili-
ties between the Christian States,’ enabling the latter to direct
their united force against the Moors, there was a sanguinary
contest between Ferdinand and his brother Garcia, King of
Navarre, in which the latter lost his life, and a considerable
part of his dominion.
In this part of his book, Mr. Hallam has made excellent use
of the valuable works of Marina, of which we gave some ac-
count in our former Numbers. He has not scrupled, however,
to dissent from that author, when he thinks him in the wrong.
Marina, led away by the popular humour prevalent at Cadiz
when he published his book, has exerted himself to prove, that
after the 13th century, the nobility and clergy ceased to be con-
stituent parts of the Cortes. Mr. Hallam combats this opinion
as highly improbable, and contrary to the general spirit of the
mixed monarchies of Europe. ‘The exclusion of the prelates
and nobility from the Cortes, can hardly have been defensible
on any constitutional rule, and must, one would imagine, have
affected the legality of those few assemblies where it occur-
red.” This reasoning is plausible, and not entirely to be
rejected; but Mr. Hallam is not aware of certain peculiarities
in the constitution of Castile, which makes it less applicable to
that State, than to any other monarchy founded on the free
principles brought from the woods of Germany by our ances-
tors.
The supreme legislative power in Castile was vested in the
king, with advice and consent of his subjects; but there seems
to have been no fixed or certain rule to determine the class or
description of-persons, with whose advice and consent he was
to exercise this authority. We find, in fact, the greatest possi-
ble irregularity in the composition as well as in the forms of
proceeding of the legislative assemblies of that kingdom. In
early times, after a recital of the persons present in Cortes, the
laws are said to have been enacted by the king de universorum
consensu ;* or con cons jo e con acuerdo of the princes of the
* In 1208.
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's JMiddle Ages, 157
blood, prelates, ricos omes, knights of the military orders, and
good men of the towns, and other good men there assembled.”
But so early as 1286, in the Cortes of Palencia, there are laws
enacted on the petition, and by the advice of the deputies of
the towns, without any mention of the nobles and clergy, who
appear not to have been convoked on that occasion. At the
Cortes of Walladolid, in 1293, various important laws were
made on the petition of the deputies of the towns of Leon, con
acuerdo of the prelates and nobles summoned to Cortes; and
two years afterwards, laws are said to be enacted in Cortes,
held at the same place, con otorgamiento of the prelates, nobles,
and good men of the towns, though none but the last were in
fact consulted. In 1299 and 1325, none appear to have been
summoned to Cortes except the deputies of the towns; and laws
are made, at their petition, by the king, without any mention of
the higher orders. But in 1329 we have a very full meeting of
Cortes, attended by the prelates, the masters of the military or-
ders, the ricos omes, infanzones, knights, esquires, and depu-
ties of the towns, to whom the king addressed himself as his
natural friends, requesting and commanding them to advise
and direct him in the government of his kingdom, which he
was desirous to administer and reform by their advice. All the
members of this assembly appear to have deliberated together,
and to have given their joint opinion on the form of petitions,
to which in general the king gave his full assent. The Cortes
of Burgos in 1301, those of Valladolid in the same year, the
Cortes of Medina del Campo in 1805, and those of Valladolid
in 1307, had been composed of the same classes of persons; and
laws had been enacted by the advice and consent of the whole
assembly. But, notwithstanding these precedents, we find Cor-
tes at Burgos in 1338, in which many important laws were
passed, attended by the nobles alone, the ricos omes, ſº
and knights, and members of the king’s council; and in the
following year we have Cortes at Madrid, to which none but
deputies of the towns appear to have been summoned. In 1348
we have the beginning of a very important innovation, which
was afterwards to make a great and fundamental change in the
constitution of Castile. The deputies of all the cities and towns
were summoned to meet the king in Cortes at Alcala de Hena-
res; but no letters of convocation were sent to the absent no-
bles or prelates, none of whom appear to have attended this
meeting, except those who were about the person of the king.
In 1349 the same practice was followed at the Cortes of Leon.
* In 1252 and 1258.
                      
                  
                  
                  133 Hallam's JMiddle Ages. June,
At the accession of Peter the Cruel, we meet with the first
clear and well-marked division of the Cortes into three separate
estates. That monarch held Cortes at Walladolid in 1351, in
which the clergy, nobles, and deputies of the towns, met and
deliberated separately, presented their petitions separately to
the king, and had separate answers. It is impossible to peruse
these petitions, without perceiving, that these three orders, with
the king, did not form one indivisible legislature, requiring the
common consent of all to the exercise of its authority; but that
each, with the king, had complete powers of legislation, so as
to form three separate bodies, with different, and often oppo-
site interests and pretensions, of which the king was the com-
mon regulator and moderator. In consequence of this legisla-
tive power, exercised by the king, in conjunction with any one
of the three estates, we find, in the Cortes held at Medina del
Campo in 1370, several laws repealed by the king, at the peti-
tion of the towns, which had been enacted the preceding year
at Toro, with consent of the three Estates, con acuerdo de los
perlados, e de ricos omes, e procuradores de las cibdades e villas.
Under the three first Princes of the house of Frastamare,
who, like our Lancastrian kings, owed their crown to a success-
ful usurpation, the government seems to have been well admi-
nistered, and the constitutional rights of the subject duly re-
spected. The nobles and the clergy were, in general, sum-
moned to the Cortes; though, on some occasions, none but de-
puties from the towns appear to have been assembled. Peti-
tions for grievances were, in general, presented in the name of
the deputies; but the old practice was still occasionally main-
tained, of bringing them forward in the name of the whole
Cortes; and, in one instance, there was a separate list of griev-
ances presented by the clergy. The petitions were answered by
the king, sometimes de proprio motu, or with advice of his coun-
cil; but, more frequently, with consent of the nobles and pre-
lates. When laws were promulgated, they were said to be en-
acted by advice of the Cortes; and grants of money were made
in the name of the clergy and nobles, as well as of the deputies.
The constitution was still irregular; but it seemed fast verging
to the same form with our own. The accession of John II. to
the throne, the first legitimate prince of the house of Frasta-
mare, in right of Constance of Lancaster, his mother, may be
fixed upon as the era from which public liberty began to de-
cline. The practice, introduced by Alonso XI., was revived,
of discontinuing letters of convocation to the absent nobles and
prelates. None but deputies of towns had writs of summons;
and the number of towns, to which writs were sent, was gra-
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 159
dually diminished, till they were reduced to seventeen. It was
at this period, too, that we hear of the first complaints among
the deputies, of interference in elections, on the part of the
Crown; sometimes, by naming or designating the deputies to
be chosen; and, at other times, by direct acts of bribery. Cer-
tain nobles and prelates still attended the Cortes; but they were
persons about the Court, who were not likely to oppose any
impediment to its designs. The great body of the nobles, oc-
cupied with private feuds, or engaged in open or secret com-
binations against the favourite Don Alvaro de Luna, lost all re-
collection of their constitutional privileges, and never thought
of obtaining redress of grievances, except by arms. The laws
promulgated at this period, were made at the petition of the
deputies, by advice of the council, or of the prelates and nobles,
who happened to be present at the Cortes.
During the reigns of John II. and Henry IV., we have ſound
but one instance of the prelates and nobles assembling on pub-
lic business; and that meeting resembled more the congress of
two hostile powers, than the convocation of a deliberative assem-
bly. It was held at Cabezons in the open fields, like the meet-
ing of John and his barons at Runnimede. After a conference
between Henry IV. and the Marquis of Villena, and other chiefs
of the malcontents, it was agreed to appoint a committee of five
to reform the State; two on the part of the king, two on the
part of the nobles, and one to have a casting voice in case of
need. This committee met at Medina del Campo ; and, after
much deliberation, prepared a body of ordinances, which were
confirmed and promulgated by the royal authority, but not car.
ried into execution in consequence of the disturbances that en-
sued. The meeting at Cabezon is termed by the king, in the
public instrument recording and ratifying its proceedings, the
ayuntamiento, which he held with the prelates, ricos omes, and
knights of his kingdom. Ayuntamiento was at that time the word
usually employed to designate the meeting of Cortes. Among
the ordinances made on this occasion, there is one (the 19th)
which declares, that no money shall be levied on the subject,
without consent of the prelates and nobles, as well as of the
deputies of the towns; a proof, that, though seldom exercised,
it was still held to be the constitutional right of the two superior
orders of the State, to concur in grants of money to the Crown.
From the congress of ayuntamiento of Cabezon in 1465, there
was no convocation of the nobles or clergy till 1527, when they
were assembled by the Emperor Charles V., to obtain a supply
against the Infidels. This application having been unsuccessful,
they were not summoned again to Cortes, though several meet-
                      
                  
                  
                  160 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
ings of the deputies of the towns took place in the interval, till
1538, when they were assembled for the last time at Toledo.
On this occasion the three orders met, and deliberated separate-
ly; and were not allowed to confer together, notwithstanding
the earnest supplications of the nobles to be permitted with the
deputies of the town. The object of the meeting was to obtain
a general tax or excise. The clergy were willing to comply
with the Emperor's wishes, but the nobles steadily refused their
consent; and, after three months had been spent in useless de-
liberations, Charles at length dissolved them abruptly, and never
afterwards called them together. From this time the Cortes of
Castile consisted of deputies of the towns only.
We have been led into these details by the difference of opi-
mion between Mr. Hallam and Marina. We have not quoted
our authorities, because they are the manuscript acts of the
Cortes which we have consulted on this point. It appears, that
in Castile, as in most European monarchies, the supreme legis-
lative power was supposed to be vested in the king, but not to
be legally exercised without the consent of his subjects. It ap-
pears, however, there was no fixed or established usage that de-
termined the particular description of persons, whose consent
was necessary to give validity to his legislative acts; and that
the practice was exceedingly variable, not only from one age to
another, but in the same age. We have, in the same reign,
laws with consent of the whole Cortes, and laws with consent of
one branch of the Cortes only. This irregularity led, in the
15th century, to the general practice of summoning no persons
to Cortes, except the deputies of the towns, with whose consent
and the advice of his council the king made laws and ordinances
for the better government of his kingdom. At a still later pe-
riod, an abuse, which had begun in the reign of John II., was
converted into an engine for superseding entirely the legislative
control of the Cortes. Pragmaticas were issued by the King
in Council, which were declared to have the force of laws, till
they should be confirmed in Cortes: And as the power of the
Crown increased and the spirit of the people declined, these
pragmaticas were at length declared to have the same force as if
they had been passed in Cortes. Such has been the state of
Spanish legislation since the accession of the house of Bourbon.
The deputies of the towns in Castile were persons of rank
and consideration at a very early period, and may, with greater
propriety, be compared to the knights of the shires, than to the
citizens and burgesses of England. In the thirteenth century,
they are styled omes buenos in the acts of the Cortes; but in
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 161
the fourteenth and succeeding centuries, they call themselves
jijos dalgo, cavalleros e escuderos e omes buenos. They had wages
from their constituents as in England. In 1525, the deputies
of Seville had each four ducats a day. They had, in general,
full powers from the cities they represented; but on some occa-
sions, their powers were limited. Each town or city had a sin-
gle vote; and therefore it was of no consequence how many
members it sent to Cortes. In later times, it was usual to
choose two representatives only ; but in the early part of Spa-
nish history, we find the number exceedingly variable, and
sometimes very great. At the Cortes of Burgos in 1315, many
towns were represented by one member only, while Soria sent
seven and Avila thirteen. Where the deputies of a town were
equally divided in opinion, that town, of course, lost its vote on
the question. Contested elections were decided by the Council,
notwithstanding several ineffectual attempts of the deputies to
bring the decision before themselves. The members of the
Council had a right to be present at the deliberations of the
Cortes, though this was sometimes disputed; but they had ne:
voice in their decisions. The deputies deliberated with close
doors, and, took an oath not to reveal what was communicated
to them by the king, or what passed in debate among them-
selves.
Mr. Hallam, misled by a passage in the Partidas, denies the
existence of territorial jurisdictions in Castile. If he had look-
ed into the ordenamiento of Alcalá, he would have found ample
proof to the contrary.” The local jurisdictions in Castile,
were not feudal; and, in some respects, were a still more im-
perfect institution. The seignior, or lord of the district, did
not hold a court, and try causes with assistance of his vassals,
but appointed an alcalde, or single judge, who had the admi-
nistration of justice, civil and criminal, in the first instance.
These territorial rights of justice, originated, like the charters
of corporations, in grants of the Crown; and there was an ap-
peal from all subordinate tribunals to the King's Courts. The
same constitution still subsists in Castile. Every village, or
pueblo, is realengo, abadengo or de senorio, according as it is
subject to the king, to the church, or to a seignior; and a cer-
tain territory, called its jurisdiccion, is annexed to it, within
which the alcalde has a right to try all questions, civil or cri-
minal, and even to decide in cases of life and death, but with
an appeal to the superior courts. The alcalde is appointed by
* Tit. 27.
vol. XXX. No. 59. 21
                      
                  
                  
                  162 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
the king, or by the seignior, civil or ecclesiastical, of the vil-
lage, and is commonly taken from a list of three persons, se-
lected by the alcalde of the preceding year. Certain dues are
payable to the lord; but, in general, they are slight, and not
exacted with severity; and, in return, the lord is expected to
give his assistance to the village, in times of distress or public
calamity. In ancient times, it was considered an advantage to
belong to the king; but latterly it has been deemed a misfor-
tune, the officers of the Crown having been found more rigid
in their exactions than those of private lords. The regidores
are not judges, as Mr. Hallam seems to imagine, but magistrates,
who have charge of the police of the streets and markets, and
the management of the revenues and common property of the
town or village.
After so much time bestowed on Castile, it will be impossible
for us to enter at length on the constitution of Arragon. We
must therefore content ourselves with recommending to our
readers the observations of Mr. Hallam on this singular form of
government. They will find, in particular, an excellent ac-
count of the office and functions of the Justiza, and a deserv-
ed eulogium on the admirable institutions of the Arragonese.
for the protection of individual liberty. It was the boast of
Arragon, as it used to be the glory of England, that no stran-
ger could set his foot upon her soil, without enjoying the equal
benefit of her laws. Arragon was, in these ages, the only spot
in Europe, that afforded refuge to the persecuted, and gave se-
curity to the oppressed. So fully was this principle established,
that it was usual for the kings of Arragon, when they took stran-
gers into their service, to make a private bargain with them—
that they should not appeal to the protection of the Justiza. A
saying of Alonzo IV. shows the differentspirit of the government
in Arragon and Castile. That prince had taken for his second
wife a sister of the king of Castile; and, yielding to her impor-
tunities, had, contrary to law, alienated in favour of her son,
certain possessions annexed to the Crown. The Valencians re-
monstrated against these grants; and, declaring they would
die sooner than consent to them, threatened to punish the ad-
visers of this illegal transaction. The King excused himself
feebly; but the Queen, who was present at the council, rose in
a fury and exclaimed, that her brother, the King of Castile,
would not have suffered such language to be used to him, but
would have cut off the head of any one who had opposed him
with such insolence. On which the King said, “Queen, our
people are free, and not so submissive as the Castilians; they
have respect for us as their lord, but we must treat them as our
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 163
good vassals and comrades;’ and then rising from his seat, he
ordered the grants to be recalled.* At a much earlier period,
when the French were threatening to invade Catalonia, Peter .
III. assembled the Cortes of Arragon at Tarazona, to solicit
their assistance. The Cortes laid before him a statement of
grievances, for which they demanded redress before they would
engage in the war, saying, that subjects without their rights .
could have little heart to fight for their king. Peter was obsti-
nate, and refused to listen to their grievances, till the war was
over; on which they confederated together, according to the
ancient use and custom of their country, for the preservation of
their laws, franchises and liberties, resolving to stand by one
another in the enterprise, and to punish all who took part
against them, but without renouncing their allegiance to the king,
unless he should punish any of them without a legal trial, in
which case they declared they should no longer consider him as
their lawful king, but transfer their allegiance to his son. “All,”
says the historian, “were unanimous in this determination; the
ricos omes and knights were not more jealous of their liberties
than the common and inferior persons; all were of opinion,
that the being and existence of Arragon depended, not on the
strength of the kingdom, but on its liberty; all were resolved,
that if their liberties must perish, the kingdom should perish
with them.” Peter was compelled at length to give way, and to
grant the Privilegio general, or, as Mr. Hallam justly calls it,
the Magna Charta of Arragon.
We must pass over the two following chapters on the Ger-
man and Greek empires, with a general recommendation to
our readers, of their contents.
The chapter on ecclesiastical power is written with great
care, and composed in a truly liberal and philosophical spirit.
Mr. Hallam traces the gradual usurpations of the ecclesiastical
on the civil authority, favoured sometimes by the mistaken po-
licy or devotion, and sometimes submitted to by the weakness
and pusillanimity of Princes. He shows by what steps the
Church acquired an exclusive jurisdiction over its own mem-
bers, and by what artifices its tribunals made such extensive
encroachments on the civil courts. He exposes the impudent
•pretensions of the bishops, in the ninth and tenth centuries, and
hardly regrets the subjugation to which they were reduced by
the Roman see in the eleventh and twelfth. With some bias
in favour of the Throne, he relates the contests between the
Crown and the Papal tiara; but expatiates with just indig-
* Zurita, lib. 7, cap. 17.
                      
                  
                  
                  164 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
nation on the shameless rapacity and immoderate ambition of
the Roman Pontiff, when he succeeded in the struggle. The
scandalous dissoluteness and open simony of Avignon, prepar-
ed the downfal of the Papal power; and the schism, that so
long disgraced and divided the Church, was near reducing its
chiefs to the comparatively humble station they had filled in
the tenth century. But the violent and outrageous conduct of
the councils enabled them to recover some portion of their au-
thority. The Bishops, who were ready enough to seize the
spoils of the Church, gave ample warning at Constance, that its
spiritual weapons would not be suffered to rust in their hands.
Their decree, that no faith was to be kept with Huss, in pre-
judice of the Catholic Church, has affixed a stain on that as-
sembly, which no time or casuistry can efface. We were pleas-
ed with a reflection of Mr. Hallam on that tragical event. As
the sober judgment of history, on all similar transactions, it is
the sentence of posterity on all who violate their engagements
with a fallen enemy, or profit by capitulations, and then evade
the performance of them. “The great moral,” he observes,
* to be drawn from the condemnation of Huss is, that no breach
of faith can be excused by our opinion of ill desert in the par-
ty, or by a narrow interpretation of our own engagements.
Every capitulation ought to be construed favourably for the
weaker side. In such cases it is emphatically true, that if the
letter killeth, the spirit should give life.”
Throughout this chapter, Mr. Hallam is animated with a
laudable zeal against the impostures and usurpations of the
Church; and, in relating the measures taken in different coun-
tries to restrain the enormous jurisdiction once possessed by
the hierarchy, he makes this sensible observation, “that ecclesias- .
tical, and not merely papal encroachments, are what civil go-
vernments, and the laity in general, have to resist; a point
which some very zealous opposers of Rome have been willing
to keep out of sight. The latter arose out of the former, and per-
haps were in some respects less objectionable. But the true
enemy, is what are called High-Church principles—be they
maintained by a pope, a bishop, or a presbyter.’
We shall not enter into an examination of some doubtful
points, concerning which we might, perhaps, differ from Mr.
Hallam ; but we cannot dismiss this chapter without remarking,
that he hardly does justice to the Church in the dispute about
investitures. The open simony practised by kings and princes;
their scandalous nominations to vacant benefices; their spoila-
tion of the lands and property of the clergy committed to their
custody; the number of years they kept abbeys and bishopricks
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 165
vacant, in order to enjoy their temporalities, rendered some re-
gulations necessary to restrain their rapacity. Religion would
otherwise have fallen into poverty and contempt; and the re-
straints, such as they were, which it opposed to lawless violence
and brutal indulgence, would have become altogether ineffec-
tual. That the Pope made a bad use of his victory, cannot be
denied; but the struggle was necessary; and, like other re-
forms, the change was for some time beneficial. We are also
of opinion, that Mr. Hallam has not given sufficient credit to
the Church for her services in the cause of civil liberty. We
doubt whether the kings of Europe would not have succeeded
universally in usurping an absolute authority over their sub-
jects, if they had not been engaged in contests with the Church,
which occupied their time, weakened their power, and forced
them to cultivate the affections of their people. It cannot be
denied, that whatever success attended the efforts of the Italian
republics against the emperors, they were greatly indebted for
it to the support and countenance of the Popes. In our coun-
try, the quarrel between Becket and Henry Plantagenet was
fortunately interposed at a critical moment, most dangerous to
our liberties, when a young, ambitious, and artful prince had
been recalled to the throne after a disastrous usurpation. The
exhortations and counsels of Langton prompted and directed
the Barons in their contest with John; and the disputes of his
grandson with the clergy, contributed not a little to obtain for
us the last confirmation and final establishment of the charters.
In all contests between the Crown and the People in the middle
ages, we find the monkish chroniclists on the popular side of
the question; and these men, no doubt, spoke the sentiments
of the order to which they belonged. The lower clergy, ne-
cessarily taken from the body of the people, must have parti-
cipated in all their feelings; and, where the interests of the
Church were not concerned, must have been inclined, in gene-
ral, to espouse their cause. The democracy of Europe had, in
those ages, no political power or consideration, except the por-
tion it enjoyed through these its virtual representatives in the
Church. Superstition, which in our days has contributed so
powerfully to rivet the chains of nations, was fortunately an
ally of the people, when her influence was at its height.
The chapter that follows, on the Constitution of England, is
the most valuable and interesting part of the book. We have
no hesitation in stating it to be the most full, accurate, and im-
partial history of the constitution, that has yet appeared. In
addition to other sources of information, Mr. Hallam has made
careful and diligent use of the rolls of Parliament; by the as:
                      
                  
                  
                  166 Hallam's JMiddle Ages, June,
sistance of which, he has been enabled to trace, with greater ex-
actness than any former historian, the progress of our constitu-
tional liberties, from the reign of Edward III. to the accession
of the house of York, when the records of Parliament become
comparatively barren and insignificant. Without setting up
our ancient constitution as a model of perfection, he has shown
that the people of this country have always lived under a mo-
narchy limited by law; and, in this view, his work may be consi-
dered as a complete and satisfactory answer to the false and mis-
chievous theories of Brady and Carte, adapted and brought in-
to notice by the genius and authority of Hume. The work of
Mr. Miller, the only historical view of the constitution that has
appeared since Mr. Hume's history, is remarkable for the saga-
city of its conjectures, the ingenuity of its explanations, the
boldness of its discussions, and its total freedom from prejudice;
but it is deficient in accuracy and research, and will not bring
conviction to a mind that has received its first impressions from
the plausible but delusive representations of Hume. It is with
great satisfaction, therefore, that we recommend the work be-
fore us to all who doubt the existence, or desire to trace the
progress of our liberties, in the middle ages. * *
It would be idle to attempt any abstract or abridgment of
this part of Mr. Hallam’s book. We shall content ourselves
with a few critical remarks, and some extracts, to show the
spirit and principles of the work.
Mr. Hallam is inclined, with Carte, to doubt the story told
by Mathew Paris of the election of John to the Crown of Eng-
land, after the death of his brother Richard. The speech put
in the mouth of Archbishop Hubert by the historian, is cer-
tainly ‘in a strain beyond the constitution;' but there is a cir-
cumstance, unnoticed by historians, that gives some probability
to his account of a more formal election than ordinary. It has
been usual for the Kings of England to date their accession to
the throne from the death of their predecessor. But it will be
found in Rymer, that John, in his public instruments, dates
the commencement of his reign, not from the death of his bro-
ther, but from his own coronation. Inattention to this pecu-
liarity has led the modern editors of the Foedera to misplace
some of the most important documents of his reign ; those, in
particular, that relate to the occupation of London by the
Barons.
Mr. Hallam admires, with reason, that equality of civil rights
enjoyed by all the Commons of England. It is a proud dis-
tinction; and, till the French revolution, we believe, peculiar
to this island. But we apprehend he is mistaken in supposing,
                      
                  
                  
                  1818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 167
that, “from the reign of Henry III. at least, the legal equality
of all ranks below the peerage was, to every essential purpose,
as complete as at present.” He has surely forgotten the statute
of Morton, which declares, that lords shall not marry those
they have in ward to villeins or others, as burgesses, where they
be disparaged. It is quite clear, that when this act was passed,
burgesses were considered an inferior class to freeholders.
We agree, with Mr. Hallam, that “we read very little of
private wars in England; but we are not satisfied ‘that they
were never legal.” He quotes a passage from Glanvil, where
that author expresses his doubts, whether a lord was entitled to
demand an aid from his vassal ad guerram suam manutemendam,
but thinks this expression must relate to ‘the military service
due from the lord to his sovereign.” If such had been the
meaning of Glanvil, he would not have expressed himself
doubtfully; for there can be no question, that the military te-
nants of a tenant in chief were bound to assist him in perform-
ing his military service to the Crown, either by their personal
attendance in the field, or by contributing, according to the ex-
tent of their ſees, to the scutage imposed on him. But the follow-
ing passage, from the same author, which seems to have escaped
Mr. Hallam, places beyond a doubt the right of private war in
England; and, notwithstanding the dubious expressions in the
former quotation, establishes the principle, that vassals were
bound to assist their lords in their private quarrels. “Si quis
plura homagia pro diversis feodis suis fecerit diversis dominis, qui se
invicem infestant, si capitalis dominus ejus ei preceperit, quod se-
cum in propria persona sua eat contra alium dominum suum, opor-
tet eum ejus precepto in hoc obtemperare, salvo tamen servitio al-
terius domini de feodo quod de co tenet.* If a vassal holds te:
nements of different lords, says Bracton, “et si inter dominos
suos capitales oriantur inimicitie, in propria persona semper sta-
bit cum eo cut fecit ligeantiam, et per attornatum cum aliis.’i
* The most prominent instance,’ says Mr. Hallam, “ of what
may be deemed a private war in England, arose out of a con-
tention between the Earls of Gloucester and Hereford, in the
reign of Edward I., during which acts of extraordinary violence
were perpetrated; but, far from its having passed for lawful,
those powerful nobles were both committed to prison, and paid
heavy fines.’ This statement is not quite correct. These no-
blemen were not fined and imprisoned, because they made wer
simply, but because they made war after they had been prohi-
bited by the king in Parliament. The punishment that attend-
* Glanvil, lib. 9, c. 1. * Bracton, lib. 2, c. 35, sect. 5.
                      
                  
                  
                  168 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
ed them is a proof, not of the illegality of private war, but of
the supremacy of Parliament, to which the King himself, as
well as the proudest baron of the land, was bound to give obe-
dience. Nor is this the only remarkable instance on record of
a private war in England. Mr. Hallam might have found in
Madox a formal truce, or cessation of hostilities, between the
Earl Marshall and the Earl of Gloucester, in the reign, proba-
bly, of Henry III.” He has himself, indeed, in a subsequent
part of his book, related some acts of violence, “amounting in
effect to a private war.”f But he is mistaken in classing Foulkes
de Breauté among the confederate barons at the accession of
Henry III. That worthy partisan was a sturdy royalist, and
steady adherent of John. His subsequent misfortunes arose
from the error of supposing he might commit the same excesses,
with impunity, under Hubert de Burgh, which he had success-
fully practised by the favour and example of his old master.
We were inclined to have entered into some discussion with
Mr. Hallam concerning the state of the English boroughs at the
time of the Conquest; but the subject is too extensive for our
limits. We are apprehensive, that, notwithstanding his well-
founded suspicions of Brady, he has confided too implicitly in that
author’s history of boroughs, the most imperfect and unfair of all
his works. He is inclined, we perceive, to doubt the existence
of municipal jurisdiction among the Saxons. He quotes indeed
the charter of Lincoln, which “refers to municipal privileges
of jurisdiction enjoyed by the citizens under the Confessor;”
but supposes, that as Lincoln was one of the five Danish towns,
“it might be in a more advantageous situation than the ge-
nerality’ of boroughs. If he had looked to the charter of
Henry II. to the burgesses of Wallingford, published by Brady
himself, he would have found a similar recognition of munici-
pal jurisdiction under the Confessor, and, in particular, a con-
firmation of their mercantile gild, with all its laws and customs,
as then enjoyed, among which was this privilege, ne prepositus
meus, vel aliqua justicia mea de gilda eorum se intromittat, nisi
proprie aldermannus et munister eorum. From a charter of
Henry I. published by Madox, it appears, that the Cnihtengild
of London had a soke or manor within the city, which they had
enjoyed under the Confessor, and probably from the time of
Edgar, with sac and soc and other privileges of Saxon jurisdic-
tion. These privileges they transferred in the time of Henry I.
to the priory of the Holy Trinity, in consequence of which the
* Formulare Anglican. p. 84. f p. 375. 377.
† Foedera, I. 471.
                      
                  
                  
                  #818. Hallam's Middle Ages. 169
prior of that monastery became one of the aldermen of London,
and continued to exercise that office till the suppression of con-
vents in 1531. The ward governed so long in this extraordi-
mary manner, is now called Portsoken ward.”
We are not in the least disposed to enter on the controversy
concerning the origin of the House of Commons. We are in-
clined, in the main, to agree with Mr. Hallam; but we cannot
help remarking to him, that the villani mentioned in the 16 Hen-
ry III. were not villeins, but townsmen, as he will at once per-
ceive, if he takes the trouble to peruse the writ. We are agreed
also, that some of his parliaments, after the 49 Henry III.
must be rejected as spurious. The citizens and burgesses were
not summoned to a Parliament in 1269, but to assist at a reli-
gious ceremony. The instance at the accession of Edward I. is
a case more in point; but the chief object of the meeting was
to swear fealty to the King.
But, without searching further for errors and omissions una-
voidable in a work like this, we shall proceed to the more pleas-
ing task of giving some extracts, as specimens of the tone and
spirit of Mr. Hallam's constitutional remarks. After relating
the impeachment of Suffolk, and the appointment of a parlia-
mentary commission for reform, in the tenth of Richard II., he
makes the following observations.
• Those, who have written our history with more or less of a Tory
bias, exclaim against this parliamentary commission as an unwarrant-
able violation of the King's sovereignty ; and even impartial men are
struck at first sight by a measure that seems to overset the natural
balance of our constitution. But it would be unfair to blame either
those concerned in this commission, some of whose names at least
have been handed down with unquestioned respect, or those high-
spirited representatives of the people, whose patriot firmness has been
hitherto commanding all our sympathy and gratitude, unless we could
distinctly pronounce by what gentler means they could restrain the
excesses of government. Thirteen Parliaments had already met
since the accession of Richard ; in all, the same remonstrances had
been repeated, and the same promises renewed. Subsidies, more fre-
quent than in any former reign, had been granted for the supposed
exigencies of the war; but this was no longer illuminated by those
dazzling victories, which give to fortune the mien of wisdom. The
coasts of England were perpetually ravaged, and her trade destroy-
ed; while the administration incurred the suspicion of diverting to
private uses that treasure which they so fully and unsuccessfully ap-
plied to the public service. No voice of his people, until it spoke in
* Firma Burgi, 23–Stow's Survey of London, I. 348.
t Foedera, I. 207.
vol. xxx. No. 59, 22
                      
                  
                  
                  170 Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
thunder, would stop an intoxicated boy in the wasteful career of dis-
sipation. He loved festivals and pageants, the prevailing folly of his
time, with unusual frivolity; and his ordinary living is represented as
beyond comparison more showy and sumptuous than even that of
his magnificent and chivalrous predecessor. Acts of Parliament were
no adequate barrier to his misgovernment. Of what avail are sta-
tutes, says Walsingham, since the king, with his privy council, is
wont to abolish what Parliament has just enacted The constant
prayer of the Commons in every session, that former statutes might
be kept in force, is no slight presumption that they were not secure
of being regarded. It may be true that Edward III.'s government
had been full as arbitrary, though not so unwise as his grandson's;
but this is the stronger argument, that nothing less than an extra-
ordinary remedy could preserve the still unstable liberties of Eng-
land.
‘The best plea that could be made for Richard was his inexperi-
ence, and the misguiding suggestions of favourites. This, however,
made it more necessary to remove those false advisers, and to supply
that inexperience. Unquestionably, the choice of ministers is repo-
sed in the sovereign; a trust, like every other attribute of legitimate
power, for the public good; not, what no legitimate power can ever
be, the instrument of selfishness or caprice. There is something
more sacred than the prerogative, or even than the constitution; the
public weal, for which all powers are granted, and to which they must
all be referred. For this public weal, it is confessed to be sometimes
necessary to shake the possessor of the throne out of his seat: could
it never be permitted to suspend, though but indirectly and for a time.
the positive exercise of misapplied prerogatives He has learned in
a very different school from myself, who denies to Parliament, at the
present day, a preventive as well as vindictive control over the admin-
istration of affairs; a right of resisting, by those means which lie with-
in its sphere, the appointment of unfit ministers. These means are
now indirect; they need not be the less effectual, and they are cer-
tainly more salutary on that account.
After this opinion of the conduct and character of Richard,
the reader of Mr. Hallam will not be surprised to find him ap-
proving of his subsequent deposition, and of the elevation of
Henry of Lancaster to the throne.
* His government, for nearly two years, was altogether tyrannical;
and, upon the same principles that cost James II. his throne, it was
unquestionably far more necessary, unless our fathers would have
abandoned all thought of liberty, to expel Richard II.”—“The revo-
lution which elevated Henry IV. to the throne, was certainly so far
accomplished by force, that the king was in captivity; and those who
might still adhere to him, in no condition to support his authority.
But the sincere concurrence, which most of the prelates and nobility,
with the mass of the people, gave to changes that could not have
                      
                  
                  
                  10 18. Hallam's Middle Ages. 171
been otherwise effected by one so unprovided with foreign support as
Henry, proves this resolution to have been, if not an indispensable,
yet a national act, and should prevent our considering the Lancas-
trian Kings as usurpers of the throne.”—“The claim of Henry, as
opposed to that of the Earl of March, was indeed ridiculous; but it is
by no means evident, that, in such cases of extreme urgency, as leave
no security for the common weal but the deposition of a reigning prince,
there rests any positive obligation upon the Estates of the realm to fill
his place with the nearest heir. A revolution of this kind seems ra-
ther to defeat and confound all prior titles, though in the new settle-
ment it will commonly be prudent, as well as equitable, to treat them
with some regard."
In discussing the claim of the House of York, he does justice
to the moderation and humanity of the excellent person who
first brought forward that pretension; and remarks, that the
sanguinary violence of Margaret left him not the choice of re-
maining a subject with impunity.
“But with us, who are to weigh these ancient factions in the ba-
lance of wisdom and justice, there should be no hesitation in decid-
ing, that the House of Lancaster were lawful sovereigns of England.
I am indeed astonished,” says Mr. Hallam, “that not only such his-
torians as Carte, who wrote undisguisedly upon a Jacobite system;
but even men of juster principles, have been inadvertent enough to
mention the right of the house of York. If the original consent of
the nation,--if three descents of the throne,—if repeated acts of
parliament, if oaths of allegiance from the whole kingdom, and
more particularly from those who now advanced a contrary preten-
sion,--if undisturbed, unquestioned possession during sixty years,
could not secure the reigning family against a mere defect in their
genealogy, when were the people to expect tranquillity ? Sceptres
were committed, and governments were instituted, for public pro-
tection and public happiness, not certainly for the benefit of rulers,
or for the security of particular destinies. No prejudice has less
in its favour; and none has been more fatal to the peace of man-
kind, than that which regards a nation of subjects as a family's
private inheritance. For, as this opinion induces reigning princes
and their courtiers, to look on the people as made only to obey them ;
so, when the tide of events has swept them from their thrones, it be-
gets a fond hope of restoration, a sense of injury and imprescriptible
rights, which give the show of justice to fresh disturbances of public
order, and rebellious against established authority.’
On the Regency question we have the misfortune to differ
from Mr. Hallam. The narrative on the rolls of Parliament, to
which he refers, (p. 398), does not, in our opinion, prove, that,
during the infancy or infirmity of the King, the ‘right of deter-
mining the persons by whom, and fixing the limitations undér
                      
                  
                  
                  172 - Hallam's Middle Ages. June,
which, the executive government shall be conducted in the
King's name and behalf, devolves upon the great Council of
Parliament,’ understanding by that phrase the two houses of
Parliament without the King, or some one to represent his per-
son. Mr. Hallam’s mistake arises from his not adverting to the
fact, that the Parliament which met at the accession of Henry
VIth, was a full and complete Parliament, being held by the
Duke of Gloucester under a commission from the Great Seal.
Mr. Hallam's last chapter contains a variety of miscellaneous
information on the state of society in Europe in the middle ages.
It is full of curious and entertaining matter, but obviously in-
capable of abridgment.
ART. VI. Lyon en Mil Huit Cent Dix-Sept. Par le Colonel,
FAbvieR, ayant fait les Fonctions de Chef de l’Etat Major
du Lieutenant du Roi dans les 7 me et 191me Divisions Mili-
taires. Paris. Delaunay, 1818.
HIS little tract is full of interest to those who read for mere
amusement; and it is calculated to convey much useful
instruction to the government of every country, which either is,
or, from sinister views, is represented to be, in a disturbed state.
We regard it as teaching a most valuable lesson to those who
are at the head of affairs in France:—and it is very melancholy
to add, that it may not be thrown away upon the rulers of our
own country, where no such excuses are to be found for rashly
charging the people with disaffection, and treating them as
traitors, because one set of men are alarmed at nothing, and
another have an interest in pretending to be so.
It is well known, that, in the course of the last summer, se-
rious discontents existed in the city of Lyons and its neighbour-
hood. These feelings broke out into acts of open violence.
Many examples were made ; the jails were filled with prison-
ers; the cours prevötales were busily occupied; the public func-
tionaries were incessant in their pursuit of delinquents. All that
transpired of the effects of these proceedings, was the increase of
the evil—although the disturbed districts exhibited the impos-
ing appearance of a most active and indefatigable government,
bent upon investigation and punishment. The government
having, for a considerable time, been misled by the usual false
statements of the local authorities, and perceiving, at last, that
there were gross errors committed somewhere, resolved, most
judiciously, to send an officer of high rank to the spot, and arm
him with the fullest powers. Equally happy was the selection