442 CHAPTER XVI. THE HOUSE OF LORDS. § 1. The history of the countries of Western Europe, The English except perhaps of Italy, knows nothing of a Aristocracy. time in which there were not nobles as well as freemen and serfs.† Homer sings of the Zeus-nourished Kings of Hellas, whose power was derived from and maintained by the gods. Tacitus describes in colder but equally distinct terms the similar sentiments of the primitive Germans. Both the Teutonic and the Scandinavian. legends are full of the glories of the sons of Woden and of Thor. The more minutely, too, the institutions of these countries are examined, the more strongly do they confirm the teachings of history. Such an aristocracy, spontaneous in its origin and sentimental in its basis, was in full force among our Saxon ancestors. They drew a clear line of difference between the Eorl and the Ceorl, between the man of gentle birth and the simple but free-born churl. Every Saxon freeman was an owner of land; but the allotment of the aristocrat was larger than that of his humble neighbour, and the burthens upon it were less severe. The nobles prepared the business for the public meetings of freemen, directed its proceedings, and carried into execution its resolves. Like the Zeus-born kings that held council * See Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, i. 77. with the son of Atreus, the Eorls deliberated with Cerdic or with Ella; and all the people, whether Achæans or Saxons, on hearing the result of these councils shouted their approval. In that strange tariff, too, in which men's lives and limbs were so precisely assessed, and which supplied the surest test of rank, a wrong done to a noble brought with it a far heavier fine than a similar wrong done to a churl. A breach of the noble's mund, that is the protection that he guaranteed, was visited with a severer penalty than a similar breach in the case of ordinary freemen. And although the freeman was an elector, the noble was exclusively eligible for the offices of Priest or of Judge or of King.* An aristocracy directly derived from this primitive form has always existed, and will probably continue long to exist, in England. The landed gentry are the legitimate descendents of the Eorl-cund men. Their distinctive legal rights have long since passed away. Our modern law, in theory at least, is no respecter of persons. It is with the one mouth that it addresses all men. It knows no difference between the transgression of the wealthiest county magnate and that of the humblest peasant on his estate. Neither the English law nor the English language is acquainted with such terms as roturier and bourgeois. But these privileges which the law withholds, the custom of the country and the habits of the people spontaneously offer. The influence of the large landed proprietors has been at all times very great. For many generations the county members, although considerably inferior in point of number to the citizens and burgesses, completely predominated in the House of Commons.+ Even still, nothwithstanding the great changes which the industrial revolution of the last Kemble, Saxons in Eng., 1. 135. + See Guizot, Rep. Govt., 423. hundred years has wrought, the old county families retain their social position. There still may be found the untitled representatives of ancient houses to whom far more consideration is given by their neighbours than to the most successful millionaire or even to any recent Peer. But although the landed gentry form the central portion of a natural aristocracy, and are at the same time the connecting link between the class which is privileged by law and the main body of the nation, they are not those to whom the term aristocracy is in political writings usually applied. The British aristocracy is usually limited to the Peerage. That body alone possesses exclusive privileges which are known to the law; and it therefore alone, to whatever limits for social purposes our aristocracy may extend, can find a place in the law of Political Conditions. § 2. The House of Lords seems to be the result of two distinct principles. One of these is tenure; the other is official position. The Peerage of the present day origin of the is the descendent of the old Great Council of the Territorial Hence, Peerage. King. But the Councillors of the King included in early times his principal tenants in chief. while the status of the Peerage is determined by its connection with the Crown, it still retains throughout all the changes of time many relics of tenure; and it still holds its place as the foremost part, though only a part, of the social aristocracy-of the Eorl-cund men, who were of gentle birth and were the owners of land. I have already said that the Great Council which attended the King, whether in Saxon or in Norman times, and by whatever title it was described, was composed of the principal landholders of the country. After the complete establishment of the Feudal system a distinction seems to have grown up in the modes of habitual communication between the Crown* and these landholders, now become its vassals. Those who held estates above a certain size, or the greater Barons as they were termed, corresponded directly with the King. Those whose holdings were less extensive, although they were still the King's Barons, corresponded with his officer, the Sheriff. Attendance upon the King's Court was a duty which their tenure imposed upon all Barons alike; but it is probable from the nature of the case that the smaller Barons gladly evaded an inconvenient and burdensome obligation. Their reluctance to attend would naturally be greatest, and their presence would be least required, when general questions of administration were under discussion, and when they had no direct pecuniary concern in the subject. The Great Council, so far as it was composed of vassals of the Crown, was thus gradually formed of the greater Barons alone. Custom and their superior wealth and social rank soon strengthened this exclusive right. The system of representation increased the difference between the two classes of Barons; and the distinction between the Council who deliberated on all questions and were summoned in their own right, and the Knights who appeared as the agents of the counties and dealt with special interests only, was fully established. When so marked a distinction in practice existed theoretically, equality could not last. The tenants in capite were all Peers. Whatever may have been the size of their estates, they all held by the same tenure and were subject to similar obligations. But when the political distinction between the two classes of military tenants was established, the title Peers was specialized. It was restricted to the members of the council. They were emphatically "the Peers." Between themselves there was equality, but they claimed to possess a higher rank than * See above, page 420. their fellow-vassals. In the same manner, too, they monopolized the common title of Baron. The Barones Minores were usually described as Knights. The words Peers and Barons describe the same class of persons from different points of view. The persons whom these terms denote were in relation to the King his Barons or men. In relation to each other they were Peers or fellow-tenants. The community of tenure was the fact which in feudal times established Peerage. The trial by Peers originally meant the trial according to customary and not Roman law by persons having the same status as the accused, attendant upon the same court, and usually resident in the same locality. The name was sometimes used metaphorically to express a relation analogous to that arising from a common tenure, such as the relation of the various classes that together formed the Parliament of the Crown. The "Modus Tenendi Parliamentum" speaks of all the Peers of the realm, meaning by this expression the several estates that met in Parliament. The same work subsequently+ enumerates the various degrees of Peerage in this sense, namely the higher and the lower clergy, the Earls and Barons, the Knights, the Citizens and Burgesses. At a later time the name acquired a special and limited meaning, and was restricted to a particular portion of the class which it originally described. Thus the history of the words Peer and Baron resembles that of Manus and of Nexum in Roman law, or the history of a multitude of less remarkable words in our own and in every other language. Such words originally denote a single homogeneous class. When the process of differentiation has set in, this class is divided into distinct parts. Each part requires and obtains a * + Page 26. See Maine's Ancient Law, 316. See also, for specialization of words, Mill's Logic, ii. 232. |