Sir,I have dwelt long,perhaps too long,on the last head.I was induced to it,not only because the account I have given,according to the truth of history,is contrary to the national prejudices of many people on this subject,as I hinted before;but principally because the great point of strength and security,on which the freedom of our constitution rests,will appear in a fuller light,by being thus contrasted with the constitution of the French government.Both their ancestors and ours came out of Germany,and had probably much the same manners,the same customs,and the same forms of government.But as they proceeded differently in the conquests they made,so did they in the establishments that followed.The conquest of Britain was a work of time,and the Saxon monarchy was long in forming.The conquest of Gaul was carried on with greater rapidity,and the French monarchy was sooner found.From hence some reasons might be drawn to account,amongst others,for that great difference between the constitutions of the two monarchies,which these two German nations founded,at no great distance of time,in Britain and in Gaul.But I shall not indulge myself in guessing at the reasons,or accidents,that determined the Franks to the division they made of their people,and to the form of government they established.Whatever reasons or accidents determined them,this is certain,that the distinction of lord and vassal became the general distinction of the whole nation;that the commons amongst them were little better than slaves,whatever they had been in Germany;and that they were so inured to servitude under their kings,prelates and lords,that they looked on themselves at last,not justly,but unjustly,as men who had no right,no,not even a right by nature,to any share in the government of that community whereof they made so vastly the principal part.
In Britain another constitution was formed,and another spirit prevailed.
The Saxons had a nobility too,arising from personal valour,or wisdom,continued by blood,and sometimes conferred by the prince,however legally at first it matters not to enquire,on such as held great offices about his person.
All these were the adelings,or nobles,an handful in comparison of the frilingi,or freeborn,who made the body of the Saxon people.The freedom of this people was erected on two columns,that have proved more durable than brass.They were parties to the making,and to the executing all the general laws of the kingdom.They shared the legislative power;were joined to the lords in the administration of justice;and no magistrate,or officer,could exercise jurisdiction,nor authority over them,no not ecclesiastical,without their consent and election.The comites ex plebe,who were chosen for this last function,the administration of justice,made one rank amongst the Saxon commonalty.The custodes pagani,such as had an helmet,a coat of mail,and a gilt sword,for their ordinary arms,whether they fought on foot,or on horseback,made another rank;and the plain pagani,or ceorles,made the lowest.But even these were totally distinct from,and far superior to the lazzi,or slaves,nay to the free lazzi,such as had been slaves,and were become free.The ceorles were freemen to all intents and purposes,and in all the essentials of liberty,as much as the Saxons of any superior rank,and were capable of rising to any superior rank by merit,or by favour.
These are the sources,from which all the distinction of rank and degree,that exist at this day amongst us,have flowed.These are the general principles of all our liberties.That this Saxon constitution hath varied in many particulars,and at several periods of time,I am far from denying.That it did so,for instance,on the entry of the Normans,though certainly not near so much as many have been willing to believe,and to make others believe,is allowed.
Nay,let it be allowed for argument's sake,and not otherwise,that during the first confusion,and the subsequent disorders which necessarily accompany and follow so great and so violent a revolution,the scheme of the Saxon constitution was broken,and the liberties of the people invaded,as well as the crown usurped.Let us even agree that laws were made,without the consent of the people;that officers and magistrates,civil,military and ecclesiastical,were imposed without their election:in one word,that these Norman kings,and the lords,had mounted each other too high to be lords over freemen,and that the government was entirely monarchical and aristocratical,without any exercise of democratical power.Let all this be granted,and the utmost that can be made of it will amount to this,that confusion and violence at the entry,and for some time after,under the government of a foreign race,introduced many illegal practices,and some foreign principles of policy,contrary to the spirit,and letter too,of the ancient constitution;and that these kings and the lords 'abused their power over the freemen,by extortion and oppression,as lords over tenants'.But it will remain true,that neither kings nor lords,nor both together,'could prevail over them,or gain their consent to give their right,or the law,up to the king's beck.
