Observations on the Conquest—account of the changes then introduced—their effects on the kingdom at large, and on Lynn and its vicinity in particular.
The conquest of England by the Normans appears to have been no less complete than those which had been before effected by the Romans, the Saxons, and the Danes. The English grandees were generally stript of their possessions, and their lands divided among the conqueror’s chief favourites and great captains, who then became the nobles of the realm, and from whom are descended most of our present great families. This conquest was obtained much easier than any of those that preceded it. A single battle now determined the fate of the whole country, partly, as was before observed, through the defection, intrigues, and influence of the clergy, most of whom were in the interest of the invader, as he was supported by their holy father the Pope, who had distinguished him by such special marks of his favour as, could not fail of attaching them to his cause.
William’s army consisted of 60,000 men; not all his own subjects, (for his duchy could not furnish and maintain such a force) but made up chiefly of adventurers, or soldiers of fortune, who had engaged in the expedition, on the promise of forfeited lands, in proportion to the numbers they brought with them. Accordingly, some are said to have afterward bestowed on them no less than 700 manors, others 5, 4, 3, 2, and 100, or less; insomuch that all the land in England, if we except the royal demesnes, the church lands, and those annexed to the cities and boroughs, were in no more than about 700 hands, whose wide possessions were again distributed among their numerous vassals, according to the principles of the feudal system, which was now completely introduced and established in England. [328]
In consequence of this change, it became a fundamental maxim, and necessary principle of our English tenures, that the king is the universal lord and original proprietor of all the lands in his kingdom, and that no man doth or can possess any part of it, but what has, mediately or immediately, been derived from him, to be held upon feudal services. This engrafting of the feudal tenure on almost all the land in the kingdom, is said to have been the most important alteration which our civil and military policy then underwent. [329a] The great lords held their lands of the king, by certain services, as all their vassals held theirs also of them. Thus the king had the whole power of the country closely connected with, and dependent upon himself. This state of things was calculated, no doubt, to secure the kingdom from external danger, and may be considered as laying the foundation of that high military character which England afterwards held among its neighbours.
A vast demesne was now set apart for the king, amounting to 1422 manors, together with many other lands which had never been erected or formed into manors. Besides these he had the profits of all his feudal tenures, his worships, marriages, and reliefs; the benefit of excheats, either upon failure of heirs, or forfeiture; the goods of felons and traitors; the profits of his courts of justice; besides many other casualties, which amounted to an immense revenue; insomuch that the Conqueror, as we are informed, had no less than 1060l. 10s. a day, the annual amount of which, allowing for the comparative value of moneys &c. was equal to several millions (perhaps twenty or more) of ours. [329b] So large a revenue might probably justify the saying of Fortescue, that originally the King of England was the richest in Europe.
We are told, that William’s military tenants were obliged, on all occasions, to furnish 60,000 knights, completely equipped, and ready to serve forty days at their own expence. Every seaport also, in proportion to its ability, was obliged to find, in time of danger, one or more ships properly furnished with men and arms; which, joined with such other ships as the king hired were generally an overmatch for the invaders. [330] Thus we see how powerful and formidable England became after the conquest, in its means of defence and resistance, under its Norman sovereigns.
Whilst we are noticing the changes now introduced into this country, it may not be improper to observe, that the feudal system was a favourite branch of the Norman policy, and which they appear carefully to have established wherever they could get a firm footing. They did so, not only in Normandy and England, but also in Sicily, which they appear to have subdued much about the time of which we are now speaking, and which has groaned under the oppression of that System ever since, even to this day. Of the commencement of that order of things in that island, and its present aspect and bearings, a very recent writer gives the following account, which may serve to cast some light on the state of our country at the period now under consideration.
“Roger the Norman, conqueror of Sicily, and contemporary with our William the First, on his accession to the throne, divided the lands of the kingdom into three portions—One third of these was called the demesnes of the Crown, which are administered by the corporation of the royal towns where they are situated; each town, according to the revenue of its demesnial lands, pays to the king a certain income, besides maintaining the police, roads, &c. &c. and the tribute which each territory pays is called the royal patrimony.—The next third part of these lands was distributed by King Roger among his nobles; some of these were fiefs contained within the territory of the demesnial towns, while others had a town of their own, of which the estate or barony formed the territory. Sometimes townships of these baronial towns have estates belonging to them, which are administered by their corporations, called giurati.—The remaining third portion was either distributed among the bishops and mitred abbots, or served to endow the several Convents, which in an age fertile in superstition were so generally established.
“This distribution of property has remained thus ever since the Norman Conquest; and all the noble fiefs, as they are held by a grant in military tenure, are supposed to belong to the crown, and given to a family and their descendants, subject to military service. This Circumstance supposes an absolutely strict entail, which prevents the sale of fiefs without the king’s sanction; (verbo regio;) it supposes also the indivisibility of the fief—hence the rights of promogeniture, which has reduced the younger branches of families to a most miserable state. Thus the lands of the nobles are entailed in their families. Those of the church are attached to it, and the demesne lands are equally so to the corporations, as above-mentioned.” [331]
Of the orders of Society in Sicily, the same writer says—
“Those princes, dukes, marquisses, and barons, who hold estates which have a town, or sufficient population, are called parliamentary barons, and have a right to sit in the assembly of the nobles: all others are called rustic fiefs, and give no right of this kind to their landlords, though they be decorated with a title.—The next order of men are the clergy, who form a distinct assembly or house of parliament, and consists of archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, mitred abbots, &c. The principal of these are younger brothers of the noble families; so that, in fact, the ecclesiastical house of parliament is tied to the lords.—The next order of men consists of a second rank of nobles, who hold fiefs without burghs, or towns, and who, though they have the same splendid titles, have no seat in the parliament. The next order are the burghers of the different towns; these apply to agriculture, to the church, and to the medical and legal professions: then come the artisans and peasants. These are the peasants of the demesne, and those who are the vassals of the parliamentary lords.”