COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

273

of French

with the

between

dition of

The close connexion between Norman and French his- CHAP. IV. tory, the way in which we may say that Normandy Connexion created France and that France created Normandy, must history be my excuse for dwelling at an apparently dispropor- general tionate length on some subjects which are only indirectly subject. connected with English history. In order thoroughly to understand the Norman Conquest of England, it is almost as needful to have a clear view of the condition and earlier history of Normandy as it is to have a clear view of the condition and earlier history of England. And such a clear view of Norman affairs cannot be obtained without constant references to French, and occasional references to German, history. And the notices of French history which are needed for this end may serve to illustrate English history in another way. The contrast between the political condition Contrast of England and that of France is most striking, even at the polithis early time. Looked at superficially, there is a certain tical conlikeness between the two. In both cases, a King of very England limited powers stands at the head of a body of Princes, France. some of whom, in extent of dominion, might almostin France not only almost, but altogether-rank as his peers. But, when we come to look more narrowly into the matter, we shall see that the likeness is only superficial. In truth there is very little real likeness at all; and if we admitted a stronger likeness than there is, if we admitted that the two countries had accidentally met at the same point, still their meeting would have been wholly accidental, because the two countries were moving in exactly opposite directions. England was directly tend- England tending ing to unity, France was directly tending to division. In to unity, the long run indeed the division to which France was tending paved the way for a closer unity than England ever attained; but, at the moment, it was to division that France was directly tending. The English Kingdom was In England formed by the gradual union of many distinct states; to had sunk

T

and of

France to

division.

Princes

into Governors;

Gover

nors had

Princes.

CHAP IV. independent Kings had succeeded dependent Kings, and to dependent Kings had succeeded Ealdormen appointed by the King and his Witan. Great and powerful as was an English Ealdorman, he still was not a sovereign, not even a dependent or vassal sovereign; he ruled only with a delegated authority; the King was supreme, and the Ealin France dorman was only a governor sent by him. In France the process was directly opposite. Local governors who, under grown into the first Carolingian Kings and Emperors, had been simple lieutenants of the sovereign, had gradually grown into hereditary Princes, who at most went through the decent ceremony of receiving their dominions as a grant from a King who could not withhold them. The Dukes, Counts, and Marquesses, of Paris, of Flanders, of Aquitaine, of Septimania, of Barcelona, had thus grown into sovereigns. Starting from the office of an English Ealdorman, they had acquired the formal position, and more than the practical independence, of a vassal King of Wales or Scotland. Normandy was a real fief from the beginning; the grant to Rolf was the exact parallel of the grant to Guthrum; but, during the second half of the tenth century, the dominions of Rolf were ruled by their native sovereign, while the dominions of Guthrum were administered by Ealdormen appointed by the English King. Difference Again, the power of the King was narrowly limited both tations on in England and in France, but it was limited in alto

of the limi

the power gether different ways in the two Kingdoms. The power

of the King

in England of the King of the English was limited, because he could

and in France.

do no important act without the consent of his Witan; the power of the King of the French was limited, because he was deprived of all direct authority beyond the narrow limits of Laôn and Compiègne. The King of the English, in the exercise of such authority as the Law gave him, was obeyed in every corner of his Kingdom. The King of the French did as he pleased in his own city of Laôn;

DIFFERENT POSITION OF THE KINGS.

275

National

at Paris and Rouen, at Poitiers and Toulouse, he received CHAP. IV. only such measure of obedience as the sovereigns of those capitals chose to yield to him. No regular Assembly, No regular constantly meeting, like our Witenagemót, had authority Assembly over the whole land, and kept the whole land bound in France. together. We read of conferences of Princes, but they are rarely held, except for some great and extraordinary occasion, like the election of a King. An Assembly, meeting yearly or oftener, to sanction the ordinary acts of the King and to pass laws binding on the whole Kingdom, was something utterly unknown.

Karlings.

And yet, when we see how narrow was the immediate Amount of real power dominion, how small were the available resources, of the retained by later Karlings, it strikes us with wonder, throughout the later the whole history, to see how much influence, how much real power, they retained. The King, however many enemies may be in arms against him, is always an important person, and he commonly finds an army to oppose to the rebel army. We wonder where he got his army, and where he got the resources to set his army in motion. No doubt, in days when war maintained itself, an army was less expensive to keep than it is now, and a victorious army might even enrich its leader. But whence did the armies come? Surely not exclusively from the narrow limits of the King's immediate territory. Nor were they likely to be formed by the spontaneous loyalty of volunteers. The influence of the royal name, the reverence attaching to the blood of the great Emperor, might do a good deal to paralyse the efforts of enemies, but they would hardly of themselves bring troops to the royal standard. But the King, if he had few subjects, was not wholly without friends. We find hints that the lesser vassals often The Kings drew supfound it their interest to support the King against the en- port from croachments of the great Dukes; we find that, in a war with one rebellious potentate, he was often supported by the rivals

various

quarters.

CHAP. IV. of that potentate, and that his more distant vassals helped him against those who were more formidable to them than

power un

he was; we find that he could especially rely on the help of those Bishops who, holding directly of the Crown, were Increase of invested with the character of ecclesiastical princes.1 And, the royal in the later and more peaceful times of Lothar and Hugh er Lothar. Capet, the King appears far more clearly than before in the character of an effective head of the Kingdom. We read more commonly of consultations with the other princes, and we see the King, by common consent, wielding the forces of all his vassals, including those of the Duke of the French himself. The wily Hugh no doubt saw that it was his interest to strengthen in every way the power and reputation of the crown which he meant one day to place on his own brow. Altogether we may doubt whether the practical power of the later Carolingian Kings was not really quite as great as that of the early Power of Capetians. The power of the Crown rested mainly on the Crown influence and prescription, and influence and prescription diately inwere not on the side of the Parisian dynasty. The immecreased by the change diate territorial dominion of the Parisian Kings was no doubt of dynasty much larger than that of the later Karlings; Paris and

not imme

Laôn together were more valuable than Laôn by itself. But the connexion between the Crown and the great vassals seems to have been distinctly weakened by the change of dynasty. The descendants of Robert and Hugh did not command the hereditary respect which attached to princes sprung from the blood of Charles and Pippin. Some disputed and outlying fiefs were altogether lost to the Kingdom, and the King's sphere of action was far more strictly confined than before to the lands north of the Loire. Lotharingia and the Spanish March fell away; the con

1 See Flodoard's description of Lewis' invasion of Normandy, A. 944"Ludowicus Rex in terram Nortmannorum proficiscitur cum Arnulfo et Herluino et quibusdam Episcopis Franciæ ac Burgundiæ."

COURSE OF EVENTS IN FRANCE.

277

nexion with Flanders gradually weakened; Aquitaine CHAP. IV. scarcely recognized even a nominal dependence. Assemblies and conferences of the whole Kingdom, rare before, seem now to go wholly out of use. Even the vassals north of the Loire, even the former vassals of the Parisian Duchy, seem to have less connexion with the Crown than heretofore. The French Duke lost in some sort by becoming King, just as the German King lost by becoming Emperor. As Duke he had been a less dignified, but he had been a more effectual, over-lord. The Parisian Dukes themselves had done more than all the rest of the world to set forth and strengthen the doctrine that the immediate vassals of a King were entitled to practical sovereignty. Thus, while England was getting more and more united, France was getting more and more divided. Under other circumstances, France might very easily have changed, step by step, from a Kingdom into a Confederation, just as Germany did.1 But, as it was, the very isolation into which the several Isolation parts of the French Kingdom now fell proved in the end led to closer the path to an unity such as England never has seen, such union. as we trust England never may see. French isolation paved the way for French centralization. In England, as the different portions of the realm became more closely united, all shared in a common national freedom without any such complete sacrifice of local and municipal independence. In France, the Crown annexed, one by one, all the dominions of its own vassals,2 and such of the dominions of its neighbours as came within its reach. Thus the whole Kingdom knew no will but that of the King. Widely as a modern English Parliament differs from an ancient

1 The different circumstances which led to such different results in France and in Germany I trust to point out in the second volume of my History of Federal Government.

With the exception of the three portions of the kingdom which have become wholly detached. See above, pp. 173, 211.

in France