of property: it declared "that all tenures by knights' service of the king, or of any other person, and by knights' service in capite, and by soccage in capite of the king, and the fruits and consequences thereof, shall be taken away or discharged, and that all tenures of any honours, manors, lands, tenements, hereditaments, &c. are turned into free and common soccage:" Thus, says my Lord Lyttleton in his history of the life and reign of Henry II." extending that tenure, which, for several ages, was reckoned comparatively mean and ignoble, to all estates of our nobility and gentry, who would have anciently thought it the greatest injury and dishonour to have had their possessions so levelled with those of the vulgar. Yet to this change, which a gradual alteration of manners and juster notions of government had prepared us to receive, is owing much of the happiness of our present condition. But, at the same time, it has obliged us to seek for other methods of giving a military strength to the kingdom consistent with our monarchy, and not dangerous to our freedom: a matter of no little difficulty, but which, if brought to perfection, would secure and perpetuate the advantages, which we have over our ancestors, in the civil policy of the kingdom."

VILLEINS. In Doomsday-Book, a distinction is made between villeins who were affixed to a manor, and others of a still lower and more servile condition, distinguished by the names of bordarii, coiarii, and servi; the two first of which seem to have rented small portions of land, and the last to have been hinds, or menial servants, residing in the families of their lords. If a free woman was married to a villein by birth, she lost her freedom during the life of her husband, and the children of such marriage became also slaves, and which state of servitude continued to all succeeding generations, unless their lord enfranchised them by his own act. Glanville says,

that in his time, if a freeman married a woman born in villeinage, and who actually lived in that state, he thereby lost the benefit of the law, (that is, all the legal rights of a freeman,) and was considered as a villein by birth, during the lifetime of his wife, on account of her villeinage. And that if a man, born in villeinage, had children by a woman born in the same state, under a different lord, the children ought to be equally divided between the two lords. This is absolutely putting children on the same foot as cattle, and is more unnatural than our present laws of slavery in the West India Colonies, where in such a case as that now mentioned, the children are always esteemed, without challenge, the property of the mother's lord. There were several methods of enfranchising villeins. If his lord, being willing to give him his freedom, had proclaimed him free from all right that he or his heirs might have to him, or had given or sold him to another, for the purpose of being enfranchised. But according to Glanville, no villein could purchase his freedom with his own money, because all the goods belonging to a villein born belonged to his lord, and therefore he

B

could not redeem himself with his master's money; but he might with the money of another man. In this respect also our negro slaves have an advantage over the old English slaves, for their property is absolutely their own, and guaranteed to them by the colonial laws. The same author says, "that if a villein born had remained quietly, (that is, unclaimed by his lord,) a year and a day, in any privileged town; so that he had been received into their community or gyld, as a citizen, he was thereby freed from his villeinage." A privileged town is one that had franchises by prescription or charter. According to lord chief justice Bracton, a quiet residence of a year and a day, on the king's demesne lands, would also enfranchise a villein who had fled from his lord. There is a law of William the Conqueror, where it is enacted, "that if any one is willing to free his slave, let him deliver him by his right hand to the sheriff, in full county court, and proclaim him discharged by manumission, from the yoke of his servitude; and let him show him the doors open and his way free, and put into his hands the arms of a free man, namely a lance and a sword, which being done, he is made a freeman." Bracton relates, that the lives and limbs of slaves were under the king's protection, so that if a lord killed his slave, he should suffer the same punishment as if he had killed any other person. The chastity of female slaves was likewise protected from all violence by the laws of those times, and the goods of villeins were secured against all others, except their lords.

:

HOMAGE. Homage was done by the vassal on his knees, unarmed and bareheaded, and holding both his hands between those of his lord, who was sitting which ceremonies denoted, (according to Bracton,) on the part of the lord, protection, defence, and warranty; on the part of the tenant, reverence and subjection. In a statute of 17 Edward II., there is a set form of words to be used by the vassal, where homage was done to a subject. Kneeling before his lord, as before related, he was to say, "I become your man from this day forward, of life, limb, and earthly honour; I will be true and faithful to you, and bear to you faith for the lands I hold of you, saving my faith to our lord the king and his heirs." After repeating these words, the lord kissed the vassal, who then rose up and took the oath of fealty as follows: "Hear this, my lord, that I will be faithful and loyal to you, and will bear to you faith for the tenements which I hold of you, and loyally will perform to you the customs and services which I owe to you, at the terms assigned, so help me God and his saints."

Homage done to the king was called leige homage, and was accompanied with the oath of allegiance expressed in these words; "I become your liege man, of life and limb, and of earthly worship; and faith and troth I shall bear unto you, to live and die against all manner of folk, so help me God." The ceremony was precisely the same otherwise, as in doing homage to a mesne lord. In the year 1039, Anselm, on being promoted to the see of Can

terbury, refused to do homage to Henry I., because some popes, and councils held under their influence, had prohibited ecclesiastics from making such an acknowledgment to princes. Anselm declared, that "he would not become the man of any mortal, nor swear fealty to any;" in which resolution he was zealously supported by the whole strength of the papacy; but after a long and severe contest, pope Paschal II. conceded that the bishops elect might do homage and take the oath of fealty, before they were consecrated. This was confirmed by the Constitutions of Clarendon, where a dangerous clause, saving his order, was allowed to be inserted; all obligations contracted by the oath, might, according to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, be eluded and cancelled by means of this clause; and in the dispute between Becket and Henry II., the former expressly pleaded it in justification of his own rebellion.

KNIGHTHOOD. The very singular spirit of chivalry, which began to display itself about the era of the Conquest, was introduced by the Normans, and gave an entirely new turn to the education of the young nobility and gentry, preparatory to their obtaining the honour of knighthood, which was then, and for ages afterwards, an object of ambition to the greatest princes. At his first entrance into the school of chivalry, a young aspirant acted in the capacity of a page; in which situation he was instructed in the laws of courtesy and politeness, and in the first rudiments of chivalry and martial exercises, to fit him to shine in courts, at tournaments, and on the field of battle. After spending some years in the station of a page, he was advanced to the more honourable rank of an esquire, admitted into more familiar intercourse with the knights and ladies of the court, and perfected in dancing, riding, hawking, hunting, tilting, and other knightly accomplishments. In short, as the courts of princes and the greater barons were a sort of colleges of chivalry, as the universities were of the arts and sciences; after spending seven or eight years in the capacity of esquire, he received the honour of knighthood, commonly from the hands of the prince, earl, or baron in whose court he had spent his youth, and received his education. When the honour of knighthood was conferred, it was accompanied with a solemn religious engagement. Some eminent writers have been of opinion, that the origin of knighthood was a voluntary association of private men for defence, but more especially for the defence of unprotected females, from the many grievous disorders that infested all Europe on the decline of the dynasty of Charlemagne. Others are inclined to derive it from a custom observed by Tacitus among the ancient Germans, of bestowing arms on their young men in the public assemblies, and the adoption per arma, practised by the Goths, and some barbarous nations. However that may be, it is probable, that the confusion and violence of those times made the order of knighthood more general, as being more necessary;

and might also occasion its consecration by solemn vows and religious rites and ceremonies. Lord Lyttleton says, the first mention made of those ceremonies in England, is by Ingulphus, who wrote in the reign of William the conqueror. He says it was the custom of the Saxons in England, that the knight elect should prepare for knighthood by confession and absolution of his sins the evening before, and afterwards by watching all night in the church; that in the morning he should offer his sword on the altar, and again receive it, blessed, from the priest; afterwards he should hear mass and receive the sacrament, when the priest placed his good sword about his neck, accompanied with a benediction to himself. But the Normans abominated this manner of consecrating the knights, despised those who were so made, and altered the custom. Other ceremonies were practised, yet the sword still continued to be received from the altar. The candidate was bathed to betoken purity, after which he was girded with his sword, a pair of gilt spurs were affixed to his heels, and the person conferring struck him gently on the neck, head or shoulders, saying, “In the name of God, St Michael and St George, I make thee a knight; be thou brave, hardy, and loyal." A gorgeous robe of scarlet or green was afterwards flung round his shoulders, and the whole solemnity was graced with the presence of the fair sex, the songs and music of minstrels, and other marks of rejoicing and honour. An esquire was not permitted to wear any gold, nor the same dress as the knight, even although they were of the highest quality.

In time of war and actual service, the usual forms were much abridged. The person to be knighted presented a sword to the king, or commander-inchief, if the king was not with the army, and desired to receive the order of knighthood, which was bestowed with no other ceremony, than a stroke on the neck with that sword. Before an assault, or any perilous action, it was customary to make a number of knights in this manner, as an encouragement to those who were thus chosen out from all the esquires there present, to act not unworthily of the dignity they received. The same thing was done at the conclusion of a battle or siege, or other military exploit, as a reward to those who had distinguished themselves by their valour. And this was justly esteemed the most honourable knighthood. In France the order was given with the following words; "I make thee a knight in the name of God and my lord St George, to maintain the faith and justice loyally, and defend the church, women, widows, and orphans."-Mons. La Curne de Sainte Paylaye, in his Memoirs of Ancient Chivalry, describes the ceremony of knighthood to have been preceded by seven fastings; nights spent in prayer in a church or chapel; penance, and the eucharist received with devotion; bathing, and putting on white robes, as emblems of that purity of manners required by the laws of chivalry; confession of all their sins; with serious attention to several sermons, in which the faith and morals of a good Christian were explained. When a candidate for the honour of

knighthood had performed all these preliminaries, he went in procession into a church, and advanced to the altar with his sword slung in a scarf about his neck. He presented his sword to the priest, who blessed it, and put it again into the scarf, about the neck of the candidate; who thence proceeded in a solemn pace, with his hands joined, to the place where he was to be knighted. This august ceremony was most commonly performed in a church or chapel, in the great hall of a palace or castle, or in the open air. When the candidate approached the personage by whom he was to be knighted, he fell on his knees at his feet, and delivered to him his sword. Being asked for what end he desired the honour of knighthood? and having returned a proper answer, the usual oath was administered to him with great solemnity. After this, knights and ladies, who assisted at the ceremony, began to adorn the candidate with the armour and ensigns of knighthood. First, they put on his spurs, beginning with the left foot; next his coat-of-mail; then his cuirass; afterwards the several pieces of armour for his arms, hands, legs, and thighs; and, last of all, they girt him with the sword. When the candidate was thus dubbed, as it was called, the king, prince, or baron, who was to make him a knight, descended from his throne or seat, and gave him, still on his knees, the accolade, which was three gentle strokes, with the flat of his sword, on the shoulder, or with the palm of his hand, on the cheek, saying, at the same time, “In the name of God, St Michael, and St George, I make thee a knight; be thou brave, hardy, and loyal.", The new knight was then raised from the ground, his helmet put on, his shield and lance delivered to him, and his horse brought; which he mounted without using the stirrup, and performed several courses, displaying his dexterity in horsemanship, and in the management of his arms, amidst the acclamation of the spectators. No institution could have been better adapted, in these rude times, for inflaming the minds of the warlike nobility with ardour to acquire those accomplishments, which were indispensable in the character of a true knight; which were beauty, strength, and agility of body; great dexterity in dancing, wrestling, hunting, hawking, riding, tilting, and every other manly exercise; also the virtues of piety, chastity, modesty ; and, above all, an inviolable attachment to truth, and invincible courage. A knight was tacitly bound to the especial defence and protection of the church. The ceremony of taking their swords from the altar, and the priest's solemn benediction, indicated their being enlisted in the service of the altar, the assistance of the poor and oppressed, the punishment of evil doers, and the emancipation of all from tyranny and wrong. But it frequently happened that many of these knights acted as if their vow had been quite the contrary, especially with respect to the church.

Every knight had a power, inherent in himself, of making other knights, not only in his own country, but wherever he went; and what seems more