Civil Government in the United States Considered with - Some Reference to Its Origins by John Fiske
page 94 of 467 (20%)
page 94 of 467 (20%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
In those days there was no such thing as a Kingdom of England; there
were only these groups of tribes living side by side. Each tribe had its leader, whose title was _ealdorman_ or "elder man." [1] After a while, as some tribes increased in size and power, their ealdormen took the title of kings. The little kingdoms coincided sometimes with a single shire, sometimes with two or more shires. Thus there was a kingdom of Kent, and the North and South Folk were combined in a kingdom of East Anglia. In course of time numbers of shires combined into larger kingdoms, such as Northumbria, Mercia, and the West Saxons; and finally the king of the West Saxons became king of all England, and the several _shires_ became subordinate parts or "shares" of the kingdom. In England, therefore, the shires are older than the nation. The shires were not made by dividing the nation, but the nation was made by uniting the shires. The English nation, like the American, grew out of the union of little states that had once been independent of one another, but had many interests in common. For not less than three hundred years after all England had been united under one king, these shires retained their self-government almost as completely as the several states of the American Union.[2] A few words about their government will not be wasted, for they will help to throw light upon some things that still form a part of our political and social life. [Footnote 1: The pronunciation, was probably something like yƔwl-dor-man.] [Footnote 2: Chalmers, _Local Government_, p. 90.] [Sidenote: Shire-mote, ealdorman, and sheriff.] The shire was governed by the _shire-mote_ (i.e. "meeting"), which was a representative body. Lords of lands, including abbots and |
|