were allowed to have a proportionate share in the direction of the government, so long was the power of the nobility confined within its proper bounds. It was then the interest of the emperor and the people mutually to assist in repressing the attempts of a haughty aristocracy, whose inordinate power was afterwards so fruitful a source of misery to the people. But when the unity of the government was destroyed, after the death of Charlemagne, by dividing it among a number of different princes; when this custom of division was continued by every successor to the various crowns of Europe, the power of the throne became a useless title, and the king could only be distinguished by his peculiar state of splendid impotence. The feudal system, which in itself was a pure and excellent system of government, was unfortunately more calculated than any other to admit abuses of the very worst description. After the death of the Great Charles, the truth of this remark was most severely felt. The system of feuds, as derived from the Huns and Vandals, was preserved by him in its pristine regularity; but when his power had ceased, then every abuse, every disorder, every act of tyranny which it could admit, was put in practice by the despotic feudist. The unprotected virgin, the infant heir, the misguided traveller, all fell victims of his atrocious passions. The people, from being the hardy vassals, whose consent was necessary to ratify an act of the empire in the time of Charles, had now become the wretched villains, their lives and property at the absolute disposal of their respective lords.

As to England, although the feudal system was in existence during the government of the Saxons, yet it was not formed into that system in use on the Continent until after the invasion of the Normans. In that country, also, the misery heaped upon the unhappy vassals of the feudal lord, had formed the subject of the bitter and well-grounded complaints of the different historians of the time.

Spain was a country in which the feudal system was likely to take a deep root. The bold bands who left the Cantabrian and Pyrenean mountains, to wrest from their Moorish oppressors the lands of their forefathers, were always led by some favourite chieftain. He divided the booty, whether of land or treasure, among his most deserving followers, exacting from them a bond of service, whenever they should be required to attend him to the field. This method was adopted, until the whole of Spain and Portugal were freed from the Moors, who, from the year 710, had preserved an establishment in that country, till finally banished under Ferdinand and Isabella. In that country, as well as England, the system having once been introduced, the naturally bad passions of men soon caused abuses

similar to those experienced in the other countries of Europe.

These irregularities continued in a greater or less degree in the kingdoms composing the grand political system of Europe, until those reigns, in which, the crown having acquired some power, was enabled to take such steps as tended to curtail the liberty, or rather licentiousness, of the nobles, and thence to ameliorate the situation of the people.

The first effectual effort in Germany to reduce the power of the nobles, was by Frederick Barbarossa, who instituting imperial towns, with particular franchises, rendered a great portion of the feudal vassals free, and provided an asylum for those, who, discontented with domestic tyranny, sought in those towns a refuge from their oppressors.

The same emperor assisted the cause of liberty, by allowing the Italian towns to purchase their freedom, from the almost obsolete claims of the German crown.

In France, a blow was aimed at the aristocratical power, by Charles VII. who, favoured by the people, and some nobles of the blood, on account of his victorious deeds against Henry V. of England, was allowed to retain a standing army in time of peace. Louis XI. by a policy as cruel as it was unjust, completed the work, which his father had so prosperously begun and although we find in the subsequent history of France a Bourbon, or a Mayenne, still the power of the nobility in that character was completely broken. Of this, a proof might be found in absolute levies made by Francis I. to carry on his wars against Charles V.

In England, although attempts had been made to remove the restraints on the alienation of real property, at different times anterior to the reign of Henry the Seventh, yet he was the first king, who authorized it so far as to render it an effectual means of decreasing the power of the nobility.

Spain, as we before observed, was peculiarly under the power of the nobles; and, when the thrones of the two Castiles, of Leon, and of Aragon, were united under the dominion of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the Moorish kingdom of Granada was subsequently acquired by their generals, the power of the nobility formed a very great check on that unlimited power, which it was their wish to exercise. The first measure adopted by them was the establishment of a regular and powerful system of police, under the title of Santa Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood. Had the effects of the Santa Hermandad been the only means adopted to check the power of the nobility, it would have been beneficial to the people, as well as to the Crown. This was, however,

only a step to the tyrannical system of government, by which, the power of the nobles was completely destroyed in the reigns of Charles the First and Philip the Second, and which forced them to remain in that state of degradation, for which they were remarked during the reigns of the other Spanish kings, both of the House of Austria, and of Bourbon.

With regard to the second division of the subject, the history and nature of Chivalry, it might be observed, that, if antiquity of origin could be considered as a recommendation, Chivalry ought to be ranked among the most illustrious institutions. Deeds, similar to those of the professors of the Chivalry of the middle ages, might be found even in heroic times, when a Hercules, or a Theseus, was the archetype of an Amadis, or a Launcelot. Tacitus mentioned a mode of ennobling youths, when they arrived at a certain age, adopted among the ancient Germans, which was in one particular similar to the manner of constituting a knight errant,-namely, of presenting him with a spear. Among the Romans, too, we found the rank, or order of knights; and, when once the head of a family had been ennobled, the honour was continued to his posterity. But, leaving institutions, which might by some be considered as having but a remote resemblance to the institution of Chivalry, if the History of Arthur, and the Knights of the Round Table, were consulted, it would be found, that, in the year 500, nearly the same oaths were taken, and a great portion of the ceremonies adopted in the constitution of a knight, which were employed in the year 1066, when the regulations of the system of Chivalry were perfected. These regulations were the following:-Till the age of seven years, the intended knight was under the care of the ladies. From seven till fourteen, he was in the character of a page, or varlet, in the house of some great knight, who was his master, in honour, and in arms: his duties, during this period, were to take care of the lord's armour, and other offices of a similar description, in which he might display his attention and adroitness. At fourteen, he entered the rank of esquire, and in that rank he remained until he attained the age of twentyone. His duties were now of rather a more important character: he attended the person of the lord to the field, served at his table, and took the management of his stables. Having arrived at the age of twenty-one, he was fitted to assume the order of knighthood. From his earliest infancy, and through all the gradations, which he passed, he was educated in the eight principles of piety, chastity, modesty, temperance, truth, loyalty, courage, and generosity. The ceremony of dubbing a knight was either performed summarily, as at sieges, embark* Framea scutoque juvenem ornant.-Mor. Germanorum, c. 15.

ations, and on other public occasions; or else after a number of ceremonies, suited to inspire awe, and produce respect in the mind of the novice, on entering his new and important office. Whole nights were spent in prayer, with the assistance of a priest, and relations; sins were confessed, and numerous ablutions performed; white raiment worn, and the Eucharist received. He was then led to the church, his sword slung in a scarf round his neck: he advanced to the altar, and the priest having blessed the sword, returned it him. Joining his hands, he turned to those who were to gird on his armour. He then presented his sword, which had been hallowed by the priest, and solemnly swore that his motives for entering the order were to promote the honour of Religion and Chivalry: he also swore to defend his country and his liege lord; to protect widows, orphans, and all who were oppressed, and who reasonably required his aid. His armour being put on by the attendants, some of whom werè ladies, he knelt before the sovereign, or presiding knight, who, striking him three times on the neck or shoulders with the flat side of his naked sword, dubbed him knight. Sometimes it was done with the palm of the hand on the cheek, as an emblem of that being the last blow he ought to receive without resenting it. In both cases, the act was accompanied with these words:-"In the name of God, St. Michael, and St. George, I make thee knight; be worthy, brave, and loyal." The names of the saints used in dubbing varied according to the patron of the particular country, in which, the knight was made. The knight's helmet being now on, he grasped his shield and spear; and, leaping on his courser without stirrups, he performed a number of flourishes to shew his dexterity. In an institution, which, in the course of time, became very numerous, it was natural that the frailty of man should cause some persons, notwithstanding the solemn bond of an oath, to swerve from the path, which the perfect and romantic virtue of a true knight pointed out as the correct one: but, if any such person should be discovered, the punishment inflicted on him was of a nature well fitted to prevent a recurrence of the offence. The knight condemned by the order of the Court of Chivalry, was conducted to the public scaffold; his arms were broken, and trampled on; the device of his crown was effaced, and trailed in, the dust; three times was he called, by a herald, as a true knight; and three times was he denied by another, as a traitor: the priest recited over him the vigils of the dead, and the 109th psalm; the herald threw a basin of warm water on his head to remove the accolade of knighthood: finally, he was placed on a hurdle, and being so drawn to the church, the vigils of the

dead were again recited over him, as one no longer in existence. In the order of the Garter, the offending knight, in addition to the former modes of disgrace, had his spurs hewn from his heels by the cook of the king's household, or some other menial servant in the same establishment. To prove that knights always served on horseback, it might not be uninteresting to remark the very great connexion, in most of the European languages, between the word for knight, and the word for horse. Thus, in Latin, eques, from equus; in Italian, cavaliere, from cavallo; in Spanish, caballero, from caballo, in Portuguese, cavalheiro, from cavallo; in French, chevalier, from cheval; in German, ritter, a knight or rider, which had an evident connexion with a horse: in Greek, although eques was translated by iTTEUS, from iTTOS; yet, since the Greeks had no such distinction as knighthood, freus must rather be taken as meaning merely a horseman, in which sense it was evidently employed by Xenophon. It might also be observed, that at different periods there had existed two hundred and ninety-three orders of knighthood; of these, ninety-one had become extinct, so that there were two hundred and two orders still in use. These particulars, with respect to knighthood, although in the opinion of some not materially affecting the main question, yet they must be taken as parts of a great system, the beneficial effects of which were still to be observed.

After the description of the duties and education of a knight, it would require but little argument to prove the third point of the question,-how Chivalry was calculated to remove the evils existing at the time it flourished. All persons of rank being usually members of the order, were placed on a level with the humblest cavalier, who could boast its honours. It was useless for the rich or the powerful to endeavour to take advantage of the means so placed in their hands, for the purpose of injuring the weak or the unfortunate, when any knight, who should espouse the cause of the latter, might successfully challenge the tyrant to the field. If the institution were viewed in another light, it would be observed, that the feudal system required that the different vassals of their respective lords should always be in a state of readiness to oppose the frequent attacks, which the ambition, or enmity of the neighbouring feudists might direct against them; so that, taken either as a civil, or a military institution, it must be regarded as advantageous to the community. The brightest scenes of the history of the middle ages were those adorned by the deeds of its professors. The skill, the valour, the honour of an Edward, a Guesclin, or the heroes of the siege of Toledo, admirable in themselves, were but single instances in a long