In aid of whatever qualities he held in common with the Saxon, the Norman brought the spirit and practice of organisation. He had learned this in a great school. He came last from the country which was the representative of Latin civilisation, and of the imperial organisation. No one now believes the story of the Roman laws having been lost until a copy of the Pandects was discovered at the siege of Amalfi. The system lived on through the overthrow of the Empire, as it lives still. There were few perhaps who could put even into the Latin of Justinian's day the subtle doctrines gathered from the disputes and maxims of the Prudentes. But as a powerful instrument of government the system was practised and respected even by those who were the worst enemies of the Empire. It suited the hardy ambitious Normans admirably. They became, in fact, the people on whom the mantle of the old Empire descended. As they naturally fell into its powerful organisation for ruling men, they inherited the spirit of insatiable aggrandisement which the Romans kept to the last. Like them, they comported themselves as the governing race whom all others were to obey, so that their national morality made aggression a virtue in themselves, and resistance a vice in others.

their condition; a topographical and genealogical dictionary of all the great families in England; and a faultless record of real property, its incidences and distribution. From its pages the Conqueror could discover at a glance the state of his revenues-the wealth, the consequence, the natural connection of every personage in his kingdom. As it was the first, so it is the greatest and most perfect experiment which has ever been made by our own or any other people in economic legislation; and history since then, notwithstanding all the appliances, improvements, sciences, and enlightenment of modern times, can point to no achievement like it."-Mr Duffus Hardy, in Preface to Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the History of Great Britain, &c., ii. xxii.

Such neighbours as these opened a new and serious future to Scotland. To the Lowland Scot as well as to the Saxon, indeed, the Norman was what a clever man, highly educated and trained in the great world of politics, is to a man of the same parts who has spent his days in a village. It was no longer that a formidable enemy might arise from time to time, but there was a great system pressed on them by men well capable of giving it all its force-a system which almost required the absorption of their country within the dominions of the Norman. It was not that there was any immediate threat of invasion or immediate pressure of any kind. The Cumbrian and Northumbrian districts lay between Scotland and the domain which the Conqueror had organised and settled, and his Doomsday Book does not extend to the present counties of Durham, Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Cumberland. The influence of the Conquest was, however, as we shall see, immediate in various shapes. For one of these the historical investigator should be thankful, as it makes his work more easy, and its results more complete. To understand the structure and working of isolated institutions, even when there are ample materials to work on, is often a difficult business. With the scanty and confused memorials left of them, it is impossible to get at the real practical influence of the offices and powers which appear to have existed here and there in the confused group of tribes inhabiting Scotland; and the philosophical method of adjusting these things from what is deemed an innate knowledge of human nature, and the habits of barbarous and primitive communities, is not so satisfactory as it used to be. The influence of the Normans infused through the

country by degrees the great feudal usages of the Continent, in the structure of which they had taken an eminent part. The working of these in any one country could not only be in a great measure comprehended by a knowledge of their leading characteristics as practised throughout Europe, but it was their specialty that, down to the minutest transaction, their operation should be articulated, and that articulation should be recorded for future use.

It will serve for our better understanding of these institutions, as they come up practically from time to time, to cast a brief glance at their origin and its causes. When Rome went on in the conquering career which was only to stop when the whole world was under imperial government, all the acquisitions were made, not for the conquerors individually, but for a great corporation. First, it was the Republic that acquired them; but when the Empire grew up this made no alteration on the external policy-the newly-conquered territory belonged to the Imperial city. We see in Roman history, and in all the regulations for the government of Roman provinces, a wakeful jealousy lest private interests should establish a power among them. So nervous was the Republic on this point, that the regulated period for which a proconsul, prætor, or other governor of a province, could hold office, was but one year. Although, under the Empire, the imperial government modified the restriction, the policy was to make frequent changes. The only way in which the victorious generals of the later Empire could attempt to establish a territorial power for themselves, was by competing for the Cæsarship itself.1

1 Looking at modern instances gives clearness to our notions of an

The imperial organisation admitted not of separate governments, either small or large. The possession of estates conferred nothing like the seignorial rights of modern times—not even so much as an English country squire now enjoys. Under the emperor, so far as property was concerned, there were but two classes—the freemen who could hold it, and the slaves who could not. But it was nothing more than property, and the right to hold it carried nothing analogous to the powers of a feudatory.

When the reaction came the conditions were reversed. The Empire was unity, but its assailants were multitudinous. Having no organic centre, each grasped what he could, more or less. The leader in each conquest might have the lion's share, but not everything. So when Odoacer seized on Italy, and Chlodwig secured France for his offspring, each of them would have followers who also were leaders, and had set themselves up as masters in some district of the acquisition. An adjustment between these and the head of all, something like the old clientage of the Romans, would be advantageous to both. It was good for the subordinate ruler to be protected against his neighbours by the head of the state; it was sound policy in the head of the

ancient policy. The British, in fact, is the same as the Roman was on this point, and it will be the better understood from the difficulties there have sometimes been in giving effect to it. Our connection with Hindostan began so modestly in the adventures of a few traders, that we cannot wonder at the prospect of its becoming a mighty empire having escaped the calculations of statesmen. It was but the other day that, after great efforts, it was made part of the Imperial Government. In New Zealand a body of gentlemen sought to establish a state for themselves, buying land from the native chiefs, which they proposed to occupy and rule under some plan of their own devising, but the central government stepped in and superseded them.

state to secure the devotion of the most powerful of his followers. The feudal organisation was subtle and varied in its adaptation to the wants and conditions of different communities; but this simple doctrine of compromise prevailed throughout-a doctrine quite at variance with the stern force which was the ruling spirit of the Roman institutions.1

There are always terms in use expressive of the masses of people who are in their right place and performing their proper functions, such as "the respectable citizen," "the loyal subject," and the like. Throughout all Europe, with the growth of the feudal system, arose corresponding terms, which, in the several languages in use, meant faithful persons, or persons who could be trusted. So we have Getreuen, Angetreuen, Antrustiones, and Fideles, whence the term feudal itself. These all, for the possession of their lands, served some lord or superior, who in his turn, perhaps, served some higher lord; and so on in any number of gradations, until the Emperor, King, or other head of the state, was reached. The system became a complete hierarchy, in which every one had his place. For a time, and for a time only, in most of the great Euro

1 A conspicuous feature in all European countries, except Spain, is a record of the difference between the Roman and the feudal hold upon the land. We have nothing from the Romans answering to a feudal stronghold or castle, no vestige of a place where a great man lived apart with his family and his servants, ruling over dependants and fortifying himself against enemies. All Roman military works were for the time of war and conquest; when that was over, and the territory annexed to the Empire, they became useless. They were not castles built upon rocks or other inaccessible places, but fortified camps in the most accessible parts of the country, to be occupied by soldiers during the work of subjugation. That completed, the new conquest became part of the Empire; and, as we have seen, the people became incorporated into citizenship with those who were all alike the subjects of the Emperor. 2 B

VOL. I.