The militia of the cities was not inferior to that of the country, and as they could be more readily assembled, they frequently had the advantage of the lords. In strong countries, situated at a distance from the seat of government, the sovereign came to lose all his authority, the cities became independent republics, and obliged the nobility to pull down their castles in the country, and live, like other peaceable inhabitants, in the city. Such is the history of Berne and of many other cities of Switzerland, as well as of all the considerable Italian republics, with the exception of Venice.1 In France and England the authority of the sovereign was never entirely destroyed. Though the cities could not attain to independence, yet the sovereign could not impose any tax upon them without their consent. They therefore sent deputies to the general assembly of the states of the kingdom, that they might join with the clergy and barons in granting extraordinary aid to the king. Hence the origin of the representation of burghs in the states-general of all the monarchies of Europe, p. 404.

In

Thus were the liberty and security of individuals established in cities when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every sort of violence. the defenceless state, men content themselves with bare subsistence, because to acquire more might tempt the injustice of their oppressors. The law at that time was so indulgent to the inhabitants of towns, and so desirous of diminishing the authority of the lords over those of the country, that if a person running away from the country, could conceal himself from his lord in a town for a year, he was free for ever. Whatever stock accu

See, for a brilliant sketch of this process, Macaulay's essay on Machiavelli.

The exceptional history is probably due to the peculiar situation of Venice. Constituted authorities would have little to fear from a mob of gondolas.

mulated in the hands of the industrious inhabitants of the country, took refuge in cities for the sake of security,' pp. 404-5.

The inhabitants of a city must ultimately derive their subsistence from the country. But if the city be on the sea-coast, they may draw it from the remote corners of the world, by exchanging the manufactured produce of their own industry, or by performing the office of carriers between distant countries. In this manner a city might attain to splendour and wealth, while the neighbouring country was in poverty and wretchedness. The cities of Italy were the first in Europe raised by commerce to opulence. Italy lay in the centre of the civilised world. The crusades were favourable to the progress of some Italian cities, by employing their shipping and encouraging their trade, pp. 405-6.

The commerce of a great part of Europe, in those times, consisted chiefly in the exchange of their own rude produce for the manufactured goods of more civilised nations. The wool of England used to be exchanged for the wines of France, the fine cloths of Flanders, &c. Thus a taste for the finer manufactures was introduced by foreign commerce into countries where no such works were carried on. And when the taste became general, the merchants, in order to save the expense of carriage, naturally endeavoured to establish some manufactures of the same kind in their own country. No large country can subsist without manufactures even in poor countries the clothing and household furniture are the produce of their own industry, pp. 406-7.

Manufactures fit for distant sale seem to have been introduced in two different ways. (1) They are some

1 This statement is exaggerated, so far as England is concerned. See Rogers's note.

As to the refuge afforded to serfs, see Hallam, Middle Ages, cap. viii. part 3.

times the offspring of foreign commerce.

Such were

Such also are the Manufactures thus

the silks and velvets of Lucca, banished from thence by the tyranny of Castracani, and established in 1310, with many privileges, at Venice. silk manufactures of Spitalfields. introduced are generally employed upon foreign materials, being imitations of foreign manufactures. (2) Manufactures for distant countries sometimes grow up naturally, by the gradual refinement of the coarser manufactures: these are generally employed upon materials which the country produces, and have been first improved in inland countries. Fertile inland countries produce abundance of provisions, which encourages workmen to settle in the neighbourhood. They give a new value to the surplus part of the rude produce. The cultivators get a better price for their surplus produce, which encourages them to increase that surplus by the better cultivation of the land. The manufacturers first supply the neighbourhood, and, as their work improves, more distant markets; for though coarse manufactures would not support the expense of a considerable land carriage, the refined may. In this manner have grown up the manufactures of Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, &c. They are the offspring of agriculture, pp. 407-9.

CHAPTER IV.

How the commerce of the towns contributed to the improvement of the country.

THE increase and riches of towns contributed to the improvement of countries: (1) By affording a ready market for the rude produce of the country. (2) The wealth acquired in cities was often employed in pur

chasing such lands as were to be sold, of which a great part would frequently be uncultivated. Merchants be

coming country gentlemen are frequently the best improvers, being accustomed to employ their money chiefly in profitable projects. And (3) commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and good government, and with them the liberty and security of individuals, pp. 410-11.

In a country which has neither foreign commerce nor finer manufactures, a great proprietor consumes the greater part of the produce of his lands in rustic hospitality. He is surrounded with a multitude of dependants, who must obey him, as soldiers obey the prince who pays them. Before the extension of commerce in Europe, the hospitality of the rich and great exceeded everything which we can imagine. Westminster Hall

was the dining-room of William Rufus, and the great Earl of Warwick is said to have entertained every day at his different manors 30,000 people. Such hospitality is common in all nations to whom commerce and manufactures are little known, from the highlands of Scotland to the deserts of Arabia. The occupiers of land were entirely dependent upon the great proprietor; such as were tenants-at-will paid a rent in no respect equivalent to the subsistence which the land afforded them.1 A sheep or a lamb was, some years ago, in the highlands of Scotland, a common rent for lands which maintained a family. Upon the authority which the proprietors had, in such a state of things, over their tenants and retainers, was founded the power of the ancient barons. They became judges in peace and leaders in war. They could maintain order and execute law. The king could do neither beyond his own domains, and was little more than the greatest proprietor in his dominions, to 1 Of course, if a farm be let much below its money value, mere ejectment will be felt by the tenant as so great a calamity, that he will be very careful not to offend his landlord.

whom the others paid certain respects.

He was therefore obliged to abandon the administration of justice, through the greater part of the country, to those who were capable of administering it; and, for the same reason, to leave the command of the country militia to those whom that militia would obey.1 The highest jurisdictions, both civil and criminal; the power of levying troops; of coining money; of making laws for the government of their own people, were all rights possessed by the great allodial proprietors, long before feudal law was known in Europe. The authority of the Saxon lords was as great before the Conquest as that of any Norman lords after it. But the feudal law was not the common law of England till after the Conquest, pp. 411-13.

The introduction of the feudal law may be regarded as an attempt to moderate the authority of the great allodial lords. It established a regular subordination from the king to the smallest proprietor. During the minority of the proprietor, the rent and management of his lands fell into the hands of his immediate superior; and those of all great proprietors into the hands of the king, who was charged with the maintenance and education of the pupil, and who had a right of disposing of him in marriage. This institution tended to strengthen the authority of the king, yet he was still incapable of restraining the violence of the great lords. They still made war continually upon each other,

2

1 For the leading features of the manorial jurisdiction in England, see Rogers's Agriculture and Prices, vol. i. cap. 6.

For the same jurisdiction in Scotland at a later age, see Captain Dunbar's Excerpta.

Hallam, Guizot, and Stubbs will afford abundant illustration of the topics here discussed.

2 Adam Smith seems to have supposed that the rights of 'wardship' and 'marriage' were general feudal incidents, whereas they were almost peculiar to England and Normandy. See Hallam, Middle Ages, cap. ii. part 1.