Page 152 of 155
[* Char. Will, apud Wilkms, p. 230. Spel. Concil.
vol. ii p. 14.]
[** Spel. Gloss, in verb. Manus mortua. We are not
to imagine, as some have done, that the church possessed
lands in this proportion, but only that they and their
vassals enjoyed such a proportionable part of the landed
property.]
[*** LL. Will. cap. 68.]
[**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Campus. The last
instance of these duels was in the 16th of Eliz. So long did
that absurdity remain.]
The feudal institutions, by raising the military tenants to a kind of sovereign dignity, by rendering personal strength and valor requisite, and by making every knight and baron his own protector and avenger, begat that martial pride and sense of honor which, being cultivated and embellished by the poets and romance writers of the age, ended in chivalry. The virtuous knight fought not only in his own quarrel, but in that of the innocent, of the helpless, and, above all, of the fair, whom he supposed to be forever under the guardianship of his valiant arm. The uncourteous knight who, from his castle, exercised robbery on travellers, and committed violence on virgins, was the object of his perpetual indignation; and he put him to death, without scruple, or trial, or appeal, wherever he met with him. The great independence of men made personal honor and fidelity the chief tie among them, and rendered it the capital virtue of every true knight, or genuine professor of chivalry. The solemnities of single combat, as established by law, banished the notion of every thing unfair or unequal in rencounters, and maintained an appearance of courtesy between the combatants till the moment of their engagement. The credulity of the age grafted on this stock the notion of giants, enchanters, dragons, spells,[*] and a thousand wonders, which still multiplied during the times of the crusades; when men, returning from so great a distance, used the liberty of imposing every fiction on their believing audience. These ideas of chivalry infected the writings, conversation, and behavior of men, during some ages; and even after they were, in a great measure, banished by the revival of learning, they left modern gallantry and the point of honor, which still maintain their influence, and are the genuine off-spring of those ancient affectations.
[* In all legal single combats, it was part of the
champion’s oath, that he carried not about him any herb,
spell, or enchantment, by which he might procure victory.
Dugd. Orig. Jurid. p. 82.]
The concession of the Great Charter, or rather its full establishment, (for there was a considerable interval of time between the one and the other,) gave rise, by degrees, to a new species of government, and introduced some order and justice into the administration. The ensuing scenes of our history are therefore somewhat different from the preceding. Yet the Great Charter contained no establishment of new courts magistrates, or senates, nor abolition of the old. It introduced no new distribution of the powers of the common-wealth, and no innovation in the political or public law of the kingdom. It only guarded, and that merely by verbal clauses, against such tyrannical practices as are incompatible with civilized government, and, if they become very frequent, are incompatible with all government. The barbarous license of the kings, and perhaps of the nobles, was thenceforth somewhat more restrained: men acquired some more security for their properties and their liberties; and government approached a little nearer to that end for which it was originally instituted—the distribution of justice, and the equal protection of the citizens. Acts of violence and iniquity in the crown, which before were only deemed injurious to individuals, and were hazardous chiefly in proportion to the number, power, and dignity of the persons affected by them, were now regarded, in some degree, as public injuries, and as infringements of a charter calculated for general security. And thus the establishment of the Great Charter, without seeming anywise to innovate in the distribution of political power, became a kind of epoch in the constitution.
1 (return)
[ NOTE A, p. 9. This question
has been disputed With as great zeal, and even acrimony, between the
Scotch and Irish antiquaries, as if the honor of their respective
countries were the most deeply concerned in the decision. We shall not
enter into any detail on so uninteresting a subject, but shall propose our
opinion in a few words. It appears more than probable, from the similitude
of language and manners, that Britain either was originally peopled, or
was subdued, by the migration of inhabitants from Gaul, and Ireland from
Britain: the position of the several countries is an additional reason
that favors this conclusion. It appears also probable, that the migrations
of that colony of Gauls or Celts, who peopled or subdued Ireland, was
originally made from the north-west parts of Britain; and this conjecture
(if it do not merit a higher name) is founded both on the Irish language
which is a very different dialect from the Welsh, and from the language
anciently spoken in South Britain, and on the vicinity of Lancashire,
Cumberland, Galloway, and Argyleshire, to that island. These events, as
they passed along before the age of history and records, must be known by
reasoning alone, which, in this case, seems to be pretty satisfactory.
Caesar and Tacitus, not to mention a multitude of other Greek and Roman
authors, were guided by like inferences. But, besides these primitive
facts, which lie in a very remote antiquity, it is a matter of positive
and undoubted testimony, that the Roman province of Britain, during the
time of the lower empire, was much infested by bands of robbers or
pirates, whom the provincial Britons called Scots or Scuits; a name which
was probably used as a term of reproach, and which these bandits
themselves did not acknowledge or assume. We may infer, from two passages
in Claudian, and from one in Orosius, and another in Isidore, that the
chief seat of these Scots was in Ireland. That some part ot the Irish
freebooters migrated back to the north-west parts of Britain, whence their
ancestors had probably been derived in a more remote age, is positively
asserted by Bede, and implied in Gildas. I grant, that neither Bede nor
Gildas are Caesars or Tacituses; but such as they are, they remain the
sole testimony on the subject, and therefore must be relied on for want of
better: happily, the frivolousness of the question corresponds to the
weakness of the authorities. Not to mention, that, if any part of the
traditional history of a barbarous people can be relied on, it is the
genealogy of nations, and even sometimes that of families. It is in vain
to argue against these facts, from the supposed warlike disposition of the
Highlanders, and unwarlike of the ancient Irish. Those arguments are still
much weaker than the authorities. Nations change very quickly in these
particulars. The Britons were unable to resist the Picts and Scots, and
invited over the Saxons for their defence, who repelled those invaders;
yet the same Britons valiantly resisted, for one hundred and fifty years,
not only this victorious band of Saxons, but infinite numbers more, who
poured in upon them from all quarters. Robert Bruce, in 1322, made a
peace, in which England, after many defeats, was constrained to
acknowledge the independence of his country; yet in no more distant period
than ten years after, Scotland was totally subdued by a small handful of
English, led by a few private noblemen. All history is full of such
events. The Irish Scots, in the course of two or three centuries, might
find time and opportunities sufficient to settle in North Britain, though
we can neither assign the period nor causes of that revolution. Their
barbarous manner of life rendered them much fitter than the Romans for
subduing these mountaineers. And, in a word, it is clear, from the
language of the two countries, that the Highlanders and the Irish are the
same people, and that the one are a colony from the other. We have
positive evidence, which, though from neutral persons, is not perhaps the
best that may be wished for, that the former, in the third or fourth
century, sprang from the latter; we have no evidence at all that the
latter sprang from the former. I shall add, that the name of Erse, or
Irish, given by the low country Scots to the language of the Scotch
Highlanders, is a certain proof of the traditional opinion delivered from
father to son, that the latter people came originally from Ireland.]
