History of the British Parliament

HISTORY OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT The shire-moot was also the general folk-moot of the tribe, assembled in arms, to whom their leaders referred the decision of questions of peace and war.

The origin of parliament may be sought in the assemblies of the Anglo-Saxons known as the "f olk-moot" or tribal assembly and in the "shire-moot" or assembly of the freemen of the shire. Superior to these local institutions was the witenagemot, or assembly of wise men, with whom the king took counsel in legislation and the government of the State. This national council has sometimes been regarded as the origin of parliament but to describe it as such is an unhistorical anticipation of modern usage. Its character has been the subject of much antiquarian in vestigation, notably by Stubbs and Liebermann. It must never be forgotten that in these early times, and indeed long after, the making of new laws is as abhorrent as it is rare. The cry of the nation, so often expressed in the charters, is not for making of of new law but for the preservation of old ones, while the levying of taxes is almost unknown except for purposes of national de fence. Such a council was originally held in each of the kingdoms commonly known as the Heptarchy ; and of ter their union in a single realm, under King Edgar, the witenagemOt became the national assembly. The witenagemot concluded treaties, advised the king as to the disposal of public lands and the appointment and removal of officers of State, and even assumed to elect and depose the king himself. The king had now attained to greater power, and more royal dignities and prerogatives. He was unques tionably the chief power in the witenagemOt ; but the laws were already promulgated, as in later times, as having been agreed to with the advice and consent of the witan. The witan also exer cised jurisdiction as a supreme court. These ancient customs pre sent further examples of the continuity of English constitutional forms.

The constitution of the witenagemOt, however, was necessarily less popular than that of the local moots in the hundred or the shire. The king himself was generally present ; and at his sum mons came prelates, abbots, ealdormen, the king's gesiths and thegns, officers of State and of the royal household, and leading tenants in chief of lands held from the Crown. Crowds some

times attended the meetings of the witan, and shouted their accla mations of approval or dissent ; and, so far, the popular voice was associated with its deliberations ; but it was at a distance from all but the inhabitants of the place in which it was assembled, and until a system of representation (q.v.) had slowly grown up there could be no further admission of the people to its deliberations.

The Norman Conquest.

The Anglo-Saxon polity was sud denly overthrown by the Norman Conquest. A stern foreign king had seized the crown, and was prepared to rule his conquered realm by the sword. He brought with him the absolutist principles of Continental rulers, and the advanced feudal system of France and Normandy. Feudalism had been slowly gaining ground under the Saxon kings, and now it was firmly established as a military organization. William the Conqueror at once rewarded his warlike barons and followers with enormous grants of land. The Saxon landowners and peasants were despoiled, and the invaders settled in their homesteads. The king claimed the broad lands of England as his own, by right of conquest ; and when he allowed his warriors to share the spoil he attached the strict condition of military service in return for every grant of land. An effective army of occupation of all ranks was thus quartered upon every province throughout the realm. England was held by the sword; a foreign king, foreign nobles, and a foreign soldiery were in possession of the soil, and swore fealty to their master, from whom they held it. Saxon bishops were deposed, and foreign prelates appointed to rule over the English Church. Instead of calling a national witen agemOt, the king took counsel with the officers of his State and household, the bishops, abbots, earls, barons and knights by whom he was pleased to surround himself. Some of the forms of a national council were indeed maintained but the witenagem6t was now transformed into a "common council" of tenants-in-chief. It was thus a purely feudal assembly.