Whether such privileges had before been usually granted along with the ******* of trade to particular burghers, as individuals, I know not.I reckon it not improbable that they were, though Icannot produce any direct evidence of it.But however this may have been, the principal attributes of villanage and slavery being thus taken away from them, they now, at least, became really free in our present sense of the word Freedom.
Nor was this all.They were generally at the same time erected into a commonalty or corporation, with the privilege of having magistrates and a town council of their own, of ****** bye-laws for their own government, of building walls for their own defence, and of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline by obliging them to watch and ward, that is, as anciently understood, to guard and defend those walls against all attacks and surprises by night as well as by day.In England they were generally exempted from suit to the hundred and county courts; and all such pleas as should arise among them, the pleas of the crown excepted, were left to the decision of their own magistrates.In other countries much greater and more extensive jurisdictions were frequently granted to them.
It might, probably, be necessary to grant to such towns as were admitted to farm their own revenues some sort of compulsive jurisdiction to oblige their own citizens to make payment.In those disorderly times it might have been extremely inconvenient to have left them to seek this sort of justice from any other tribunal.But it must seem extraordinary that the sovereigns of all the different countries of Europe should have exchanged in this manner for a rent certain, never more to be augmented, that branch of the revenue which was, perhaps, of all others the most likely to be improved by the natural course of things, without either expense or attention of their own: and that they should, besides, have in this manner voluntarily erected a sort of independent republics in the heart of their own dominions.
In order to understand this, it must be remembered that in those days the sovereign of perhaps no country in Europe was able to protect, through the whole extent of his dominions, the weaker part of his subjects from the oppression of the great lords.
Those whom the law could not protect, and who were not strong enough to defend themselves, were obliged either to have recourse to the protection of some great lord, and in order to obtain it to become either his slaves or vassals; or to enter into a league of mutual defence for the common protection of one another.The inhabitants of cities and burghs, considered as single individuals, had no power to defend themselves; but by entering into a league of mutual defence with their neighbours, they were capable of ****** no contemptible resistance.The lords despised the burghers, whom they considered not only as of a different order, but as a parcel of emancipated slaves, almost of a different species from themselves.The wealth of the burghers never failed to provoke their envy and indignation, and they plundered them upon every occasion without mercy or remorse.The burghers naturally hated and feared the lords.The king hated and feared them too; but though perhaps he might despise, he had no reason either to hate or fear the burghers.Mutual interest, therefore, disposed them to support the king, and the king to support them against the lords.They were the enemies of his enemies, and it was his interest to render them as secure and independent of those enemies as he could.By granting them magistrates of their own, the privilege of ****** bye-laws for their own government, that of building walls for their own defence, and that of reducing all their inhabitants under a sort of military discipline, he gave them all the means of security and independency of the barons which it was in his power to bestow.Without the establishment of some regular government of this kind, without some authority to compel their inhabitants to act according to some certain plan or system, no voluntary league of mutual defence could either have afforded them any permanent security, or have enabled them to give the king any considerable support.By granting them the farm of their town in fee, he took away from those whom he wished to have for his friends, and, if one may say so, for his allies, all ground of jealousy and suspicion that he was ever afterwards to oppress them, either by raising the farm rent of their town or by granting it to some other farmer.
The princes who lived upon the worst terms with their barons seem accordingly to have been the most liberal in grants of this kind to their burghs.King John of England, for example, appears to have been a most munificent benefactor to his towns.Philip the First of France lost all authority over his barons.Towards the end of his reign, his son Lewis, known afterwards by the name of Lewis the Fat, consulted, according to Father Daniel, with the bishops of the royal demesnes concerning the most proper means of restraining the violence of the great lords.Their advice consisted of two different proposals.One was to erect a new order of jurisdiction, by establishing magistrates and a town council in every considerable town of his demesnes.The other was to form a new militia, by ****** the inhabitants of those towns, under the command of their own magistrates, march out upon proper occasions to the assistance of the king.It is from this period, according to the French antiquarians, that we are to date the institution of the magistrates and councils of cities in France.
It was during the unprosperous reigns of the princes of the house of Suabia that the greater part of the free towns of Germany received the first grants of their privileges, and that the famous Hanseatic league first became formidable.
