The incipient forms of the feudal relation arose at a very early period; but to suppose that what is called the "feudal system" existed then, is a great mistake. The state of things, designated by that appellation, did not reach its definite form, nor did its ramifications branch out to their full extent, till the tenth century. In France, feudalism had the deepest root, and arrived earliest at maturity; but during the ninth century, even there, we see it but gradually rising amidst the storms of anarchy which ensued upon the dissolution of the empire founded by Charlemagne. Feudalism was not, as some seem to imagine, a system introduced, at once, by the barbarian invaders, wherever they established their sway, but a form of social existence and power, which, though its parentage may be partly attributed to the German tribes, was also indebted, for its being, to causes which came into operation after the settlement of the northern warriors in their conquered territories; and, when it had attained its full vigour, it was very unlike anything which had been ever before seen either by themselves or others. [1] Proofs and Illustrations of the Origin of Eng. Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 208. SECTION II. FEUDALISM IN FRANCE. Feudalism, as already intimated, reached its height in France, where we find it in its palmy pride, during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Had we travelled through the country at that time, we should have been especially struck with the vast number of castles scattered over the land. Within them were concentrated the elements of strength. Feudal owners were the captains, rulers, and magistrates of the age. These important personages might be divided into two classes, according to the nature of the fiefs which they held. The holders of royal fiefs formed the first class, the holders of arrière, or subordinate fiefs, formed the second class. The former comprised dukes, marquises, counts; the latter included those of the lesser barons, who were denominated châtelains, as having a right to occupy fortified houses. The latter class of nobles were dependent on the former, and stood to them in the relation of vassals; they again, in their turn, had a number of dependents, subject to their authority, and owing them military service. Each of these nobles was a sovereign in his own domain, the fountain of law, polity, and order. His superior lord did not interfere with him in his internal rule, but simply required from him certain external feudal services. Sovereignty in France had sunk, at this time, to a very low ebb, and retained but a shadow of authority. The kings of that country were then little more than nobles, holding fiefs of their own, subject to no superior; over their own territories they had complete feudal power, like other lords, but beyond that, their authority was feeble. A tie of supremacy scarcely more than a name--a memento of the past, resulting from the original grant of