them.  And poor Sir Roger, the holder, but not the possessor of all, walked only in a region of sterility, with no sublimer ideas than poachers and trespassers-no more rational enjoyment than the brute indulgence of hunting like a ferret, and seizing his fellow-men like a bulldog.  He was a specimen of human nature degenerated, retrograded from the divine to the bestial, through the long operating influences of false notions and institutions, continued beyond their time.  He had only the soul of a keeper.  Had he been only a keeper, he had been a much happier man.

His time was at hand.  The severity which he had long dealt out toward all sorts of offenders made him the object of the deepest vengeance.  In a lonely hollow of his woods, watching at midnight with two of his men, there came a sturdy knot of poachers.  An affray ensued.  The men perceived that their old enemy, Sir Roger, was there:  and the blow of a hedge-stake stretched him on the earth.  His keepers fled—­and thus ignominiously terminated the long line of the Rockvilles.  Sir Roger was the last of his line, but not of his class.  There is a feudal art of sinking, which requires no study; and the Rockvilles are but one family among thousands who have perished in its practice.

CHAPTER II.

In Great Stockington there lived a race of paupers.  From the year of the 42d of Elizabeth, or 1601, down to the present generation, this race maintained an uninterrupted descent.  They were a steady and unbroken line of paupers, as the parish books testify.  From generation to generation their demands on the parish funds stand recorded.  There were no lacunae in their career; there never failed an heir to these families; fed on the bread of idleness and legal provision, these people flourished, increased and multiplied.  Sometimes compelled to work for the weekly dole which they received, they never acquired a taste for labor, or lost the taste for the bread for which they did not labor.  These paupers regarded this maintenance by no means as a disgrace.  They claimed it as a right,—­as their patrimony.  They contended that one-third of the property of the Church had been given by benevolent individuals for the support of the poor, and that what the Reformation wrongfully deprived them of, the great enactment of Elizabeth rightfully—­and only rightfully—­restored.

Those who imagine that all paupers merely claimed parish relief because the law ordained it, commit a great error.  There were numbers who were hereditary paupers, and that on a tradition carefully handed down, that they were only manfully claiming their own.  They traced their claims from the most ancient feudal times, when the lord was as much bound to maintain his villein in gross, as the villein was to work for the lord.  These paupers were, in fact, or claimed to be, the original adscripti glebae, and to have as much a claim to parish support as the landed