corresponded much with the Anglo-Saxon, except that their King was hereditary, and that they were always free from the odious institution of slavery. Sovereign power was inherited among the Cymri, according to the present rules of descent in England, from whom it was probably derived. The chief people were the Princes or large land-proprietors, who dwelt in magnificent style, and exercised unbounded hospitality in their halls upon their estates. Here they received their retainers and tenants, to whom they dispensed the greatest liberality: here also dwelt the Bards, Priests, and Literati of the period—the Taliesins, Aneurins, and Dafydd ap Gwilyms—in the enjoyment of the most profuse favors and protection from their munificent patrons. Hence also the spontaneous and faithful attachment of the whole to their Princes,—as exemplified in the poems of the Bards, and the warlike records of the Cymric nation. Besides the Princes, were a large number of independent landowners or Esquires distributed over the whole island. The great mass of the people, as in every community, labored on the land, or were employed in domestic and mercantile occupations. Slavery or even abject servitude was unknown among them: every class enjoyed the rights and exercised the privileges of freemen, and seldom failed in obtaining redress for any crime or wrong. In their freedom from slavery, and their full enjoyment of civil rights and immunities, the Cymri of ancient times formed a striking contrast with all the European nations.
The effects of the Norman Conquest varied altogether as it respected the Anglo-Saxons and the Cymri. The former were entirely subjected to the feudal system, and their lands forfeited and parcelled out among the Norman chiefs. The forest laws and other odious parts of the feudal system were executed in all their rigor against the vanquished Saxon: hence the sanguinary feuds and mortal
enmity which for several centuries existed between the Saxon and Norman race. The former, repelled by the feudal system from open war, retaliated by private and secret murders and injuries upon their Norman oppressors: no Saxon impeaching, the murder or crime was never discovered, and the perpetrator unpunished. At length the Normans, being decimated by this practice of stealthy revenge, passed a law that every Saxon in the parish should answer for every Norman found killed within its limits. This law, which would have been rigorously executed, at last suppressed the Saxon retaliation; nevertheless the hostility between the two races continued for ages, and was only inflamed by the contempt and oppression of the Norman on all occasions evinced. The Cymri on the other hand remained free in their mountain fastnesses and plains west of the Severn and Dee, and unaffected by the Norman invasion and conquest. They even rejoiced at the change, inasmuch as it supplanted a foreign and adverse race—the Saxon—by a kindred and more congenial people; for the Normans were Celts descended from the same Cimbric origin, and had many qualities of mind and heart in common with the Ancient Britons: whereas the characteristics of the Saxons, and of the Teutonic race in general, were entirely opposite. The Normans celebrated the anniversary feasts and cherished the memory of the Cymric King Arthur of the Round Table, whose chivalric fame they regarded as much their own as the Cymri, for he ruled the Celts of Gaul as well as of Britain. The Cymri therefore looked on with placidity and satisfaction at the mutual enmity and reprisals of Normans and Saxons, for they remained unconquered and unmolested in their upland homes. We find them occasionally under their Princes making inroads into England, and conquering and retaining much border territory. The Norman Kings therefore established on the Welsh borders the Lords-marchers, or Lords authorised
to conquer and hold by the sword land in Wales; and erected a chain of castles and fortresses from Chester through Shrewsbury and Gloucester to Pembroke, for the defence of the frontier, and the repression of sorties from Wales. Hence the Grosvenors, De Greys, Cliffords, and Mortimers of border chivalry. Hence also the border wars between them and Gruffydd ap Conan, Owain Gwynedd, Llewelyn, and other Princes of Wales, wherein great courage and chivalry were displayed on both sides, and seldom to the advantage of the Norman. At last, after ages of bloodshed and war, and repeated failures, the subjection of the Principality was accomplished, a.d. 1283, by Edward the First, who, to extinguish the last embers of patriotic fire, massacred upwards of one hundred Welsh Bards, in addition to many Cymric Princes. But the Cymri were still discontented and given to insurrection, until a monarch of their own Tudor blood was placed on the British throne in the person of Henry the Seventh, a.d. 1485. Henceforward they became more reconciled to the larger and dominant race, and at length subsided into peaceful submission and attachment to the British throne and laws.
But to return to the feudal system strictly so called, we find the Lords and Barons were all-powerful within their dominions, and had the power of giving or taking away the life, liberty, and property of their retainers and vassals. They often made war upon each other, the consequences of which were frequently awful in the streams of blood which flowed, and the murder, rapine, and spoliation which ensued. Evidences of these internal wars are seen in the ruined castles and dismantled towers which cover our own country and the continent of Europe. The Barons would frequently league together, and make war upon the King or Sovereign, in which they often triumphed. A remarkable instance of this is found in
English History, when the Barons joined in opposing King John, and wrested from him Magna Charta at Runnymede. The De Veres, Bohuns, Mowbrays, Nevilles, Howards, Percys, and Somersets often overshadowed their sovereign lieges in England; while the powerful families of Douglas and Scott for ages held the Kings of Scotland in awe. The Kings and Sovereigns were more in fear and had greater apprehensions of the feudal Barons, than from the mass of their subjects, and were therefore often completely obsequious to their wills. But ever and anon would arise an Edward or a James, who, defying the enmity of the feudal chiefs, diminished their powers and restrained their excesses. Yet this was never done, or even attempted, without the greatest opposition and danger, and never but by a brave and formidable Prince.
Each of the great Barons kept a Court, and indulged in a style of pageantry corresponding in an inferior degree to that of Royalty, of which he occasionally affected independence. When the great Earl Warrenne was questioned respecting the right to his vast land possessions, he drew his sword, saying that was his title, and that William did not himself conquer England, but that his ancestor with the rest of the Barons were joint adventurers in the enterprise. As the Barons were so powerful, the Sovereign never made war or undertook any other great enterprise without first convoking and consulting them, as their co-operation was necessary to his success. In fact, such was their position in the realm, that no change in the laws or government, nor any great act of administration, could be accomplished without their advice and consent. Hence they formed with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the sole and supreme legislative council of the Sovereign. Independently of the necessity for their advice and co-operation in national enterprises, the Sovereign
was desirous of convoking the Barons to his councils at stated periods, as a badge of fealty, and to remind them of their allegiance to Royalty; which in the autocratic retirement of their castles, and the solitude of their manors, they were prone to forget. Whensoever any of the Barons rebelled against the royal authority, the Sovereign assembled the other Barons to assist him in suppressing the mutiny. If on the other hand any Baron should be unable to repel the encroachments of a neighbor, he appealed to the Sovereign as the supreme liege for help to resist and punish the aggression, which with the aid of other chieftains was generally granted. The Sovereign therefore stood in the same relation to the Barons of the whole realm, as they individually to their vassals, the feudal theory being, that all land was held ultimately from the Sovereign in return for military and other services, failing which it reverted to the Crown.
The Barons, as may be supposed, exercised unlimited power within their domains, as the Sovereign never interposed in questions between the Lord and his vassals, so long as the chief rendered the services required by the Crown. Hence the power of each Baron was absolute within his dominions; and from his acts there was no appeal, much less redress. He even affected Royalty by obliging his principal vassals to give attendance upon him, in like manner as he and the other Barons paid court to the King, and by establishing Courts and Judges of his own to administer justice to his vassals. In short, every Barony was a miniature Kingdom, with an army of retainers, a train of officials, and other insignia of State grandeur corresponding with the wealth and power of the chief. To maintain this condition, the Baron was under the necessity of raising a large revenue from his Barony; and as a great display of power was essential for the chief, his exactions from the vassals and all within his
power were consequently heavy. This revenue was obtained from heriots, fines, and tolls; which being arbitrary, the amount depended on the want which called it forth, or on the conscience of the chief. A heriot of the best horse, or certain head of cattle, or a fine of so many marks, were payable to the Baron on the marriage or death of his vassal, and on each fresh succession to the fief. These exactions were not confined to the immediate vassals and villains, but extended to the whole population within the limits of the Barony. The towns were in this era small, consisting principally of villages, which, as they were situate within some Barony, were equally subjected to fiscal burdens. These, in addition to heavy fines demanded for any building, liberty, or encroachment on the manor, consisted of tolls and duties imposed on the exportation or importation of goods, and on the sale of horses, cattle, or stock which, to increase the revenue, were prohibited being sold outside the vills, or except in the fairs and markets there licensed to be held, whereupon the tolls attached. By this means the Baron raised a considerable revenue to support his power and state. But as the Baron was more hostile to the trading community or the population of towns, than to his own military vassals and tenants on the soil, as being less serviceable to his warlike power, and more antagonistic to, and discontented with his seignioral privileges,—he imposed on the former heavier fiscal burdens, and spared no opportunity of oppressing them with the most odious extortions. The military and mercantile spirits have always been antagonistic and hostile, and the germs of that great conflict which has since existed, and in recent times been so grandly developed between the two elements, are plainly discernible in this era—the cradle of its history.