Ireland, was connected with an earlier stage of economic development, mainly of a pastoral kind. The tribal community was bound together by the strong ties of bloodrelationship between free tribesmen. This free equality involved an equal division amongst the tribesmen, according to various tribal rules, and the custom of subdivision has survived to our own day in the "run-dale" 66 "or runrig" system of the west of Scotland and Ireland. In this brief summary many interesting points have been omitted, and many certainly require further investigation. The origin of the size and shape of the long-acre strips, the original object of the irregular scattering, and the way in which the system became solidified in such an inconvenient form for modern requirements, can only be alluded to. Perhaps the most remarkable general result is that cooperation, which we are accustomed to regard as a purely modern product, is very ancient; but whether this co-operation arose, unlike most other ancient institutions, purely from rational elements and from motives of economy and convenience, has not yet been the subject of sufficient investigation. Certainly, hitherto the principal danger in reconstructing primitive societies has been to import too readily modern ideas, and not to allow sufficiently for what we should now call irrational elements.

§ 7. Summary of Results. The survey of village communities brings into prominence certain general features which seem to be beyond the reach of controversy: (1) Whether in their origin they were in the main free or servile, whether the original type is the manor or the mark, — and it is probable that under different conditions different elements were predominant,-in the course of time they readily lent themselves to some form of external domination. Thus, in Russia and in India the collectors of taxes from the communes gradually assumed the rights of overlordship; and in England, if the village communities were ever free, it was at a very remote period, and they were absorbed in the feudal manors. (2) It is

only in the non-progressive nations that they have survived. In England, in particular, the course of development has been marked by the disintegration of the various customs which had their origin in ownership and cultivation in common. (3) Thus, the system of private property and freedom of contract, as regards land, stands out as the natural result of economic evolution.1

It will appear in the next chapter that the examination of feudalism, already to some extent anticipated, leads to a similar conclusion.

1 The reader may consult, for the latest results, the careful work of Dr. Andrews on the Old English Manor. Mr. Garnier's History of the English Landed Interest shows an unusual combination of historical reading and practical knowledge.

CHAPTER VII.

FEUDALISM.

§ 1. On the Economic, as distinguished from other, Aspects of Feudalism. As the system on which the whole structure of mediæval society rested, feudalism is of fundamental importance in constitutional history as determining the form of government and the relations of governors and governed. It is of great importance also in general history, for the wars and policy of the state were often determined by feudal considerations. In the history of law the feudal system is for a long period predominant, and there are many technicalities in existing laws which cannot be understood without going back to their roots in feudalism.

For the present purpose, however, we have only to consider the system in its economic bearings; that is to say, as involving a peculiar organisation in the production and distribution of wealth. An examination of feudalism

from this point of view is instructive in two respects: first, because it offers a striking contrast to the present industrial system, and secondly, because it broke down mainly under the pressure of the economic forces which have gradually become dominant in progressive nations.

The close connection with the subject of this book may be illustrated by reference to the origin of the term. The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German word for cattle,1 the secondary meaning being goods, especially money and house property in general.2

2 Stubbs' Constitutional History, Vol. I., p. 251, note.

§ 2. Principal Characteristics of Feudalism.1 In its essence the feudal system was a great military organisation. The typical feudal state was a nation ready to take arms. The king was like the commander-in-chief; his immediate feudal tenants were generals, each of whom not only commanded but equipped his contingent. These contingents again were made up by the contribution of lesser tenants, of whom some were bound to take the field with a certain number of men and horses, some only to serve in person. This part of the system was antecedent to feudalism, and was almost universal in early societies. But the peculiarity of the feudal system was that the type of military organisation was fixed and solidified by being made territorial. Land, as the ultimate source of wealth, and at that time almost the only direct one, was regarded by the state according to its capacity for supporting the defence of the nation. Hence, military service in some form either personal, or definite provision for it was the essence and condition of the landholder's title. According to this view, the feudal tenant is best regarded as an officer settled upon land, rather than as the owner of land; that is to say, we shall find the conception of military obligation taking the place at present held by contract.2

This mode of regarding the feudal system, in which I have followed Sir F. Pollock, must be considered as intended to bring into prominence certain typical features and structural arrangements. It must not be supposed that the feudal system was ever actually established on the simple lines here laid down. Historically, it had a complex origin, and from the first it was modified, in different countries, by various social forces. A few points may be noticed bearing upon the history of feudalism in England.

Under the Anglo-Saxons the general character of the

1 Pollock's Land Laws, p. 52, and Stubbs, Vol. I., Ch. IX.

2 Cunningham's Growth of Industry, Vol. I., p. 130.

1

development has been described by Stubbs 1 as a movement from the personal to the territorial organisation; in the former the free man of pure blood has a right to share in the land of his race, the king is king of the race, the host is the people in arms, the courts are the people in council; in the latter stage of development possession of land usurps the place of freedom of blood, although remnants of the old influences are still left.

The country, at the Conquest, was thus well fitted for the imposition of the feudalism which the Norman brought "full grown from France." This institution was derived from two great sources, technically known as the beneficium and commendation. The beneficiary system arose partly from gifts of land by the kings to their kinsmen and retainers under the condition of fidelity, and partly from the surrender by land-owners of their estates to churches or powerful men to be received back and held by them as tenants for rent and service. By the practice of commendation the inferior put himself under the personal care of a superior lord, but without altering his title to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage by placing his hands between those of his lord. The union of the land tenure of the former element the beneficium with the personal connexion of the latter

commendation completed the idea of feudal obligation. The rights of defence and service were supplemented by the right of jurisdiction; the lord judged as well as defended his vassal, and the vassal did suit as well as service to his lord.

It is evident from the general principles of feudalism that the great danger is the weakness of the central authority, or, in other words, the tendency of the feudal lords to become practically independent of the king. In England the reign of Stephen furnishes a striking example of the reality of this danger, and shows how much the personal character of the monarch affected the whole national

1 Vol. I., p. 166.