ed particular attention, or whenever he wished to ac complish any object 'by means of their assistance. As vassals of the crown, they were bound to obey the royal mandate. On the same account, they were liable to all the feudal incidents : and to these severe regulations, they submitted for many centuries, though often with great reluctance, and not without some at. tempts to limit the power by which they were en forced. But the connection between the king and his barons was by no means so intimate as that which subsisted between the feudal lords and their imme diate dependants. For a great part of the year, and occasionally for many successive years, they lived at a distance from the seat of royal authority, while the number and attachment of their followers, as well as their military character, enabled them, either to dis obey with impunity, or, if the sceptre happened to fall into weak hands, boldly to assert their indepen dence. This immoderate power of the nobles, was not acquired at once. It was the result of favourable circumstances in different reigns, and of various con secutive attempts to resist the encroachments of the prerogative. Fiefs being rendered hereditary, the property in land came, by additional grants, mar riages, and otherwise, into the possession of a few great families. The consequence of this was, that the chiefs of these families lived with a splendour, and appeared with a number of retainers, scarcely inferior to those of the king. In the reign of Wil liam of Normandy, the powerful Earl of Warenne held lands in twelve different counties of England; and in Scotland, the retinue of the sixth Earl of Douglas usually consisted of two thousand The next step towards the independence of the barons was that of obtaining for themselves and their fami lies, the chief offices of trust and authority under the crown. Besides the great council, which met occa sionally, and in which every territorial superior pos sessing land to a certain amount had the right of be ing present, the higher nobility formed what was called the " Aula Raegis," or tour du roy, a regular assembly to which the direction of affairs, both civil . and military, was exclusively committed, and before which all questions of importance were tried and de cided. According to Madox, (Hist. of the Exche- . quer,) the Aula Regis was composed of seven offi cers. 1. The chief justiciar, or lord justice general. 2. The constable, or principal groom. 3. The mare schall, or principal smith or farrier. 4. The sene schal!, or lord high steward of the kingdom, originally also dapifer, or steward of the household. 5. The chamberlain. 6. The chancellor. 7. The treasurer; originally the deputy of the high steward, and in later times that of the chamberlain. There is no doubt that these officers were at first appointed by the king, and were removeable at pleasure. In a short time, however, the places which they held, and the honours connected with them, were attached, not to the individual, but to the fief. They descended, in conjunction with the property in land, to the heirs of the existing possessors, and like that property, which was at length fixed by entail, were considered as unalienable. The effect of the whole was, that " a person whose undutiful behaviour rendered him odious to his prince, or whose incapacity exposed him to the contempt of the people, often held a place '.of power and trust equally important to both." Robertson's Hist. of Scotland, vol. i. p. 26.
In no kingdom of Europe did the power of the feudal aristocracy rise to a greater height than in Scotland. Besides the usual circumstances of resi dence among their vassals, settling their disputes, conducting them to the field, and protecting them from injury, the Scottish nobles availed themselves of a tendency which they perceived among their fol lowers to unite more closely under the dominion of their (6 liege lords." The vassal, proud of the ser vice, and glorying in the magnificence of his chief, considered himself, and wished to be considered by others, as of the same family with him, while the baron, encouraging the fiction, and at length, per . haps, persuaded of its truth, willingly acknowledged his kindredship with those who obeyed him, and saw, with pleasure, that the attachment of his dependants was strengthened by an additional tie. The whole nation was divided into clans. In each of these every individual bore the name of his feudal superior, re garded himself as a branch of his family, and was, eager to support his pretensions. When engaged in
disputes with the king, therefore, the nobles, follow ed by a multitude of bold and martial retainers, de voted to their interest, were not often inclined to yield. Retiring to their castles, frequently strong by nature, and situated in regions almost inaccessible, they violated, with impunity, the laws enacted by the Scottish parliament, afforded protection to criminals, refused to deliver them up, and set the authority of the crown at'defiance. Even so late as the time of Mary, nearly one fourth part of the kingdom was summoned to attend her chief justice in arms, before a few robbers on the border could be tried for their crimes. ( Keith, Hist. of Scotland, p. 193.) Nor was this all. In order still farther to establish their in. dependence, the Scottish nobles entered into leagues of mutual defence and support. It is not to be de nied, however, that these were originally formed, rather with a view to repel the inroads of hostile clans, than to limit the authority of the monarch. But it is equally certain, that whenever a dispute arose between any of the united families and the, king, the whole association would oppose the royal preten sions, and, according to their numbers and abilities, would do so with success. In the reign of James II. the most powerful of the Scottish barons was 'Wil liam Earl of Douglas. But though at the head of vassals more numerous and warlike than any chief. taro of his country had ever led to the field, this was not the only source of his power. He was united in firm alliance with the Earls of Crawford, Ross, and Murray, and with the whole name of the Hamiltons. These rendered him not so much the subject of the king as his equal. And had not James, by a deed of violence, deprived him of life, and thus dissolved the association, it might have shaken the foundations of the throne, and transferred the crown from the house of Stuart to the family of Douglas.
The history of the feudal establishment in general, is replete with struggles between the nobles and the monarch. In reigns when great vigour and activity were displayed by the king, there is reason to believe that he was often the aggressor; and that by his un usual exactions, he roused the barons, and in some degree forced them to limit his encroachments,' or to resist his claims. One of the most powerful com binations of the English nobility, with a view to lighten the burden of subjection, by ascertaining their privileges, was formed in the reign of William the Conqueror ; a ruler distinguished by the severity of his government. It was the tyranny of this monarch and of his immediate successor, that urged the barons to demand a charter of their liberties from Henry I. who, in the beginning of his reign, was placed in cir cumstances that rendered it necessary for him to court the affections of his people. Other charters of a similar nature were granted by kings, whose actions are usually considered as the most splendid atchieve ment recorded in English history. On the contrary, it is not to be disputed, that when the sovereign was irresolute and capricious, the barons may have taken advantage of his weakness, and brought forward claims, which, had they been placed in different cir cumstances, they would have judged it fit to sup press. Of this assertion, the reign of John affords a conspicuous and memorable proof. Destitute of vi gour, skill, or perseverance, this wretched prince was first deserted by his nobles, and then constrained to retire before them. In proportion to his imbecility and the calainitous state of his affairs, they assumed a higher tone, multiplied their demands, and refused to make concessions; till, on the plain of Runnymede, they extorted from him the great charter of their liberties, which every Englishman now regards as the most valuable portion of his birth-right. This event has been celebrated by Professor Richardson, in lines worthy of its magnitude and importance : —Hail, Runny-mead! Illustrious field ! like Marathon renowned, Or Salamis, where freedom on the hosts Of Persia, from her radiant sword, shook fear And dire discomfiture ! Even now I tread Where Albion's ancient Bnaoris won the pledge Of independence : O gallant chiefs whether ye ride the winds, Bound on some high commission to confound The pride of guilty kings; or, to alarm Their coward spirits, through the realms of night, Hurl the tremendous comet, or in bowers Of blooming paradise enjoy repose; I ween the memory of your patriot zeal Exalts your glory, and sublimes your joys.