The great feries of events in the hiftory of England may be divided into three parts: the first, extending from the fettlement of the Saxons in Britain to the Norman conqueft; the fecond, from the reign of William the Conqueror to the acceffion of the houfe of Stewart; the third, from the reign of James the First to the prefent time. The important changes exhibited in the state of the country, and in the fituation of its inhabitants, appear like a fort of natural boundaries, to mark out thefe different periods, and to recommend them as objects of diftinct and feparate examination.

The first period contains the conqueft of England by the northern barbarians, the divifion of the country under the different chiefs by whom that people were conducted, the fubfequent union of those principalities under one fovereign, and the courfe of public tranfactions under the Saxon and Danish monarchs.

• The reign of William the Conqueror, while it put an end to the ancient line of kings, introduced into England a multitude of foreigners, who obtained extenfive landed poffeffions, and fpread with great rapidity the manners and cuftoms of a nation more civilized and improved than the English. The inhabitants were thus excited to a quicker advancement in the common arts of life, at the fame time that the nation, by acquiring continental connections," was involved in more extenfive military operations.

By the union of the crowns of England and Scotland, upon the acceffion of the house of Stewart, the animofities and diffenfions," with all their troublesome consequences, which had fo long fubfifted between the two countries, were effectually fuppreffed. By the improvement of manufactures, and the introduction of a confiderable foreign trade, England began, in a fhort time, to eftablish her mari-. time power, and to affume a higher rank in the fcale of Europe..

The fame periods are alfo diftinguished by remarkable variations in the form of government.

Upon the fettlement of the Saxons in Britain, we behold a number of rude families or tribes feebly united together, and little accustomed either to fubordination among themselves, or to the autho rity of a monarch. During the reigns of the Anglo-Saxon princes, we difcover the effects produced by the gradual acquisition of property; in confequence of which fome individuals were advanced to the poffeffion of great eftates, and others, who had been lefs fortunate, were obliged to fhelter themfelves under the protection of their more opulent neighbours. Political power, the ufual attendant of property, was thus gradually accumulated in the hands of a few great leaders, or nobles; and the government became more and more ariftocratical.

When the advances of the country in improvement had opened a wider intercourse, and produced a more intimate union between the different parts of the kingdom, the accumulated property in the hands of the king became the fource of greater influence than the divided property poffeffed by the nobles. The prerogatives, of the former, in a courfe of time, were therefore gradually augmented; and the privileges of the latter fuffered a proportionable diminution. From the reign of William the Conqueror in England, we may date the first exaltation of the crown, which under his fucceffors

of

of the Plantagenet and Tudor families, continued to rife in fplendour and authority.

About the commencement of the reign of James the First, great alterations began to appear in the political state of the nation. Commerce and manufactures, by diffufing a fpirit of liberty among the great body of the people, by changing the fyftem of national defence, and by encreafing the neceffary expences of government, gave rife to thofe difputes, which, after various turns of fortune, were at laft happily terminated by the establishment of a popular government.

With reference to that diftribution of property, in the early part of our history, which goes under the name of the feudal fyftem, the conftitution established in the first of thefe periods, may be called the feudal ariftocracy; that in the fecond, the feudal monarchy; and that which took place in the third, may be called the commercial govern

ment.

'Similar periods to thofe which have now been pointed out in the English hiftory, may alfo be diftinguished in the hiftory of all thofe kingdoms on the continent of Europe, which were established upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, and in which the people have fince become opulent and polished. Thus the reign of Hugh Capet in France, and of Otho the Great in Germany, correfpond to that of William the Conqueror in England; as thofe of Lewis XIII. and Ferdinand II. in the two former countries, were analogous to that of James the First, in the latter.

In the following treatife, it is proposed to take a separate view of thefe periods of the English history, and to examine the chief differences of the political fyftem in each of them. As the government which we enjoy at prefent has not been formed at once, but has grown to maturity in a courfe of ages, it is neceffary, in order to have a full view of the circumftances from which it has proceeded, that we should farvey with attention the fucceffive changes through which it has paffed. In a difquifition of this nature, it is hoped, that, by confidering events in the order in which they happened, the caufes of every change will be more eafily unfolded, and may be pointed out with greater fimplicity. As the fubject, however, is of great extent, I fhall endeavour to avoid prolixity, either from quoting authorities and adducing proofs in matters fufficiently evident, or from intermixing any detail of facts not intimately connected with the hiftory of our conftitution.'

Mr. Millar propofes, in the course of his work, opinions different from thofe entertained by many of his predeceffors, who have written on the fame fubject; and, in our judgment, he fupports them with fo much ingenuity and ability, chat, notwithstanding the weight of authority against him, we are inclined to favour his decifions. It has long been an article of popular belief, that the fyftem of feudal tenures was introduced into England at the Conqueft. Spelman, in his Gloffary, in verbo "Feudum," exprefsly fays, that William brought it from Normandy, and incorporated it with the body of the English law then fubfifting. His words are," Peodorum fervitutes in Bri

tanniam noftram primus invexit Gulielmus Senior, Conqueftor nuncupatus; qui lege eâ e Normaniâ traductâ, Angliam totam fuis divifit commilitibus."

It cannot be denied that fome authors, before Mr. Millar, entertained different fentiments on this fubject; and among them appear the refpectable names of Lord Coke and Mr. Selden, who clearly were of opinion that the existence af feuds was prior to the Norman Conqueft. The manner in which this pofition is, in the prefent inftance, illuftrated, appears to us ingenious, new, and fatisfactory. It is an attempt to fhew, that the fituation of the Anglo-Saxons being fimilar to that of the other barbarous nations who overran the Roman Empire, it was natural to expect that their forms of government would bear a great resemblance.

As the original manners and cuftoms of all these nations were extremely analogous to thofe of the Saxons in England, and as their conqueft and fettlement in the Western empire were completed nearly in the fame manner, it was to be expected that they would fall under a fimilar government. It has happened, accordingly, that their political inflitutions are manifeftly formed upon the fame plan, and prefent, to the most careless obferver, the fame afpect and leading features, from which, as in the children of a family, their common origin may clearly be difcovered. They differ, no less remarkably, from all the other fyftems of policy that have been recorded in an cient or modern hiftory. It may be worth while, therefore, to examine the caufes of the uniformity, fo obfervable among all those nations, and of the peculiarities, by which they are so much diftinguished from the other inhabitants of the world.'

Our Author concludes, from the following premifes, that the Anglo-Saxons were governed by the fame laws as the other barbarians who fettled in the provinces of the Western empire:

1. The fettlement of the barbarous nations, upon the western continent of Europe, as well as in England, was effected by the gradual fubjection of a more civilized people, with whom the conquerors were at length completely incorporated.

The accounts of the various conquefts that have been achieved in different ages and countries, bear no refemblance to thofe exhibited at this period in Europe. Rude and uncivilized nations have been engaged in war with nations as rude and uncivilized as themselves. Again, people arrived at a confiderable degree of refinement in their manners have conquered nations in the fame, or perhaps in a more advanced stage of refinement; and, laftly, the barbarous and the uncultivated have been reduced to fubjection by the elegant and the polifhed. But never did a conqueft, with fuch peculiar circumftances attending it, take place till the period which we are now defcribing.

2. The German or Gothic nations, who fettled in the weftern part of Europe, were enabled, in a fhort time, to form kingdoms

of

of greater extent than are ufually to be found among people equally rude and barbarous.

The difpofition to theft and rapine, fo prevalent among rude nations, makes it neceffary that the members of every family should have a watchful eye upon the conduct of all their neighbours, and fhould be conftantly upon their guard to preferve their perfons from outrage, and their property from depredation. The first efforts of civil government are intended to fuperfede this neceffity, by punishing fuch offences, and enabling the individuals of the fame community to live together in peace and tranquillity. But thefe efforts, it is evident, are likely to be more effectual in a small state than in a large one; and the public magiftrate finds it much more difficult to extend and fupport his authority over a multitude of individuals, difperfed through a wide country, than over a fmall number, confined to a narrow district. It is for this reafon that government has commonly been fooner established, as well as better modelled, in communities of a moderate size, than in those which comprehend the inhabitants of an extenfive region.

In proportion to the great number of people, and the great extent of territory, in each of the modern European kingdoms, the advances of authority in the public were flow, and its capacity of reftraining violence and diforder was limited. The different families of a kingdom, though they acknowledged the fame fovereign, and were directed by him in their foreign military enterprizes, were not, upon ordinary occafions, in a fituation to feel much dependence upon him. Acquiring great landed poffeffions, and refiding at a distance from the capital, as well as in places of difficult accefs, they were often in a condition to fet the whole power of the crown at defiance; and difdaining to fubmit their quarrels to the determination of the civil magiftrate, they affumed a privilege of revenging with their own hands the injuries or indignities which they pretended to have fuffered. When not employed, therefore, in expeditions against a public enemy, they were commonly engaged in private hoftilities among themselves; from the frequent repetition of which there arofe animofities and feuds, that were only to be extinguished with the life of the combatants, and that, in many cafes, were even rendered hereditary. In fuch a ftate of anarchy and confufion, the ftrong were permitted to opprefs the weak; and thofe who had moit power of hurting their neighbours, were the most completely fecured from the punishment due to their offences.

As the individuals of a nation were thus deftitute of protection from government, they were under the neceffity of defending themfelves, or of feeking protection from one another; and the little focieties compofed of near relations, or formed accidentally by neighbourhood and acquaintance, were obliged to unite in the most inti mate manner, to repel the attacks of their numerous enemies. The poor were forced to fhelter themselves under the influence and power of the rich; and the latter found it convenient to employ a great part of their wealth, in order to obtain the conftant aid and fupport of the former. The head of every family was commonly furrounded by as great a number of kindred and dependents as he was capable of maintaining; these were accustomed to follow him in war, and in time

I 4

time of peace to fhare in the rural sports to which he was addicted; it was their duty to efpoufe his quarrel on every occafion, as it was incumbent on him to defend them from injuries. In a family fo small, that all its members could be maintained about the fame house, a mutual obligation of this kind was naturally understood from the fituation of the parties; but in larger focieties it was rendered more clear and definite by an exprefs agreement. A man of great opulence diftributed part of his demefne among his retainers, upon condition of their performing military fervices; as, on the other hand, the fmall proprietors in his neighbourhood, being incapable of maintaining their independence, were glad to purchase his protection, by agreeing to hold their land upon the fame terms. Hence the origin of vaffalage in Europe, the nature of which will be more particularly explained hereafter. Every confiderable proprietor of land had thus a number of military fervants, who, instead of pay, enjoyed a part of his eftate, as the reward of their fervices. By this diftribution and arrangement of landed poffeffions, the moft natural remedy was provided for the evils arising from the weakness of government. Men of inferior ftation, who fingly were incapable of defending their perfons or their property, obtained more fecurity, as as well as confideration, under their refpective fuperiors; and the inhabitants of a large territory, being combined in focieties, who had each of them a common intereft, were in a better condition to resist the general tide of violence, and oppreffion.

From thefe obfervations we may difcover how far the connections between the fuperior and vaffal, and the various parts of what is called the feudal fyftem, are peculiar to the modern ftates of Europe, or belong to them in common with other nations.

In Greece and Rome, or in any of the fmall ftates of antiquity, there are few or no traces to be difcovered of the feudal inftitutions, From the inconfiderable number of people collected in each of thofe ancient ftates, and from the narrowness of the territory which they inhabited, the government was enabled, at an early period, to extend its protection to all the citizens, fo as to free them from the neceffity of providing for their own fafety, by affociating themfelves under particular military leaders, If any fort of vaffalage, therefore, had been introduced in the infancy of thofe nations, it appears to have been abolished before they were poffeffed of historical records.

In many rude nations of greater extent, both in ancient and modern times, we may difcern, on the contrary, the outlines of the feudal policy. This, if we can trust the relations given by tra vellers, is particularly the cafe at present in several of the kingdoms in Afia, and upon the fouthern coast of Africa. In thefe kingdoms, the number of barbarians collected under one fovereign has probably rendered the government fo feeble, as to require a number of fubordinate affociations, for the protection of individuals; but the coali tion of different families being neither fo extenfive, nor produced in the fame rapid manner, as in the modern states of Europe, the regu la ions to which it has given occafion are neither fo numerous and accurate, nor have they been reduced into fo regular a fyftem.'

M. Miliar, proceeding, gives us a very ingenious account of Tythings, Hundreds, and Counties; and fhews that they were

not,